JALT Journal - Vol. 38 No.2 November 2016 by The Japan Association for Language Teaching

jalt journal

The research journal of the Japan Association for Language Teaching

Volume 38 • No. 2 • November 2016

全国語学教育学会

Japan Association for Language Teaching ¥1,900 ISSN 0287-2420

JALT Journal Volume 38 • No. 2 November, 2016

Editor Anne McLellan Howard Miyazaki International College

Associate Editor Eric Hauser University of Electro-Communications and University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa

Reviews Editor Greg Rouault Tezukayama Gakuin University Japanese-Language Editor Ken Urano Hokkai-Gakuen University

Consulting Editors Melodie Cook University of Niigata Prefecture Greg Sholdt Kobe University

Japanese-Language Associate Editor Yo In’nami Chuo University

Editorial Board William Acton Trinity Western University, Canada David Aline Kanagawa University David Beglar Temple University—Japan Campus James Dean Brown University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, USA Charles Browne Meiji Gakuin University Yuko Goto Butler University of Pennsylvania, USA Christine Pearson Casanave Temple University—Japan Campus Eton Churchill Kanagawa University Steve Cornwell Osaka Jogakuin University Neil Cowie Okayama University

Anne Ediger Hunter College, City University of New York, USA James A. Elwood Meiji University Peter Gobel Kyoto Sangyo University Tim Greer Kobe University Michael Guest Miyazaki University Yuri Hosoda Kanagawa University Ian Isemonger Kumamoto University Yuri Kite Kansai University Darren Lingley Kochi University Setsuko Mori Kinki University

Tim Murphey Kanda University of International Studies Carol Rinnert Hiroshima City University Gordon Robson Showa Women’s University Hidetoshi Saito Ibaraki University Hideki Sakai Shinshu University David Shea Keio University Tamara Swenson Osaka Jogakuin University Deryn Verity The State University of Pennsylvania Yoshinori J. Watanabe Sophia University Sayoko Yamashita Jissen Women’s University

Additional Readers: Scott Aubrey, Gregory Glasgow, Takaaki Hiratsuka, Masanori Matsumura, Hiroaki Tanaka, Yoichi Watari

JALT Journal Production Editor: Aleda Krause JALT Journal Proofreading: Amy Brown, Susan Gilford, Marie Kjeldgaard, Aleda Krause, Sarah Lemmon, Steve McGuire, Sachiko Nakao, Barbara Northwood, Gavin O’Neill JALT Publications Board Chair: Gerald Talandis JALT Journal Layout & Design: Malcolm Swanson JALT Journal on the Internet: http://jalt-publications.org/jj/ Website Editor: Malcolm Swanson

Contents 73 In this Issue 74 From the Editor

November 2016 Volume 38 • No. 2

Articles

75 Coordination, Teacher Autonomy, and Collaboration in EFL Programs in Japanese Higher Education — Caleb Prichard and Jana Moore 97 Examining the Effects of Types of Pretask Planning on Oral Performances — Chie Ogawa 119 英語学習動機の変化に影響を及ぼす要因―動機高揚経験及び減衰経験の内容分析 [Factors on Changes of English Learning Motivation: A Content Analysis of Motivating and Demotivating Experiences] — 菊地恵太 (Keita Kikuchi) and 酒井英樹 (Hideki Sakai)

Research Forum

149 Reexamination of Word Length Effect: Immediate Serial Recall of Foreign Words — Junichiro Takeno, Ken Tamai, and Shigenobu Takatsuka

Reviews 166

169 172 176 179 182 186

Corpus Linguistics for Grammar: A Guide for Research (Christian Jones and Daniel Waller) — Reviewed by John Cross Task-Based Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition (Mike Long) — Reviewed by Martin Hawkes Putting CLIL Into Practice (Phil Ball, Keith Kelly, and John Clegg) — Reviewed by Laura MacGregor Reflective Teaching in Higher Education (Paul Ashwin, et al.) — Reviewed by John Nevara Creativity in Language Teaching: Perspectives From Research and Practice (Rodney H. Jones and Jack C. Richards, Eds.) — Reviewed by Daniel Tang Task-Based Language Learning: Insights From and For L2 Writing (Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón, Eds.) — Reviewed by Jennifer Louise Teeter Interlanguage: Forty Years Later (ZhaoHong Han and Elaine Tarone, Eds.) — Reviewed by Akie Yasunaga

JALT Journal Information

190 Information for Contributors (English and Japanese)

Japan Association for Language Teaching A Nonprofit Organization The Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to the improvement of language teaching and learning in Japan. It provides a forum for the exchange of new ideas and techniques and a means of keeping informed about developments in the rapidly changing field of second and foreign language education. Established in 1976, JALT serves an international membership of approximately 3,000 language teachers. There are 33 JALT chapters and 26 special interest groups (SIGs). JALT is a founder of PAC (Pan-Asian Consortium), which is an association of language teacher organizations in Pacific Asia. PAC holds annual regional conferences and exchanges information among its member organizations. JALT is the Japan affiliate of International TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) and a branch of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language). JALT is also affiliated with many other international and domestic organizations. JALT publishes JALT Journal, a semiannual research journal; The Language Teacher, a bimonthly periodical containing articles, teaching activities, reviews, and announcements about professional concerns; and the annual JALT Post Conference Publication. The JALT International Conference on Language Teaching and Learning and Educational Materials Exposition attracts some 2,000 participants annually and offers over 600 papers, workshops, colloquia, and poster sessions. Each JALT chapter holds local meetings and JALT’s SIGs provide information and newsletters on specific areas of interest. JALT also sponsors special events such as workshops and conferences on specific themes and awards annual grants for research projects related to language teaching and learning. Membership is open to those interested in language education and includes the option of joining one chapter and one SIG, copies of JALT publications, and free or discounted admission to JALT-sponsored events. JALT members can join as many additional SIGs as they wish for an annual fee of ¥2,000 per SIG. For information, contact the JALT Central Office or visit the JALT website.

JALT National Officers, 2014–2016

President:. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Caroline Lloyd Vice President:. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Richmond Stroupe Auditor: . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Aleda Krause Director of Treasury:. . . . . . . . . .. . . . Kevin Ryan Director of Records:. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Nathaniel French Director of Program:. . . . . . . . . .. . . . Steve Cornwell Director of Membership: .. . . . .. . . . Fred Carruth Director of Public Relations:. . . . . . . Ted O’Neill

Chapters Akita, East Shikoku, Fukui, Fukuoka, Gifu, Gunma, Hamamatsu, Hiroshima, Hokkaido, Ibaraki, Iwate, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Matsuyama, Nagoya, NanKyu, Nara, Niigata, Oita, Okayama, Okinawa, Osaka, Saitama, Sendai, Shinshu, Shizuoka, Tokyo, Tottori, Toyohashi, West Tokyo, Yamagata, Yokohama.

Special Interest Groups

Bilingualism; Business Communications (forming); College and University Educators; Computer-Assisted Language Learning; Critical Thinking; Extensive Reading; Framework and Language Portfolio; Gender Awareness in Language Education; Global Issues in Language Education; Japanese as a Second Language; Learner Development; Lifelong Language Learning; Literature in Language Teaching; Materials Writers; Mind, Brain, and Education; Other Language Educators; Pragmatics; School Owners (forming); Speech, Drama, & Debate; Study Abroad; Task-Based Learning; Teacher Development; Teachers Helping Teachers; Teaching Younger Learners; Testing and Evaluation; Vocabulary.

JALT Central Office

Urban Edge Building, 5F 1-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan Tel.: 03-3837-1630; Fax: 03-3837-1631; Email: jco@jalt.org; Website: <www.jalt.org>

In This Issue

Articles In this November issue we are pleased to present three feature articles and a Research Forum. In the first article, Caleb Prichard and Jana Moore examine the amount of program coordination and teacher autonomy that can be found in higher institutions in Japan. In an article considering influences on performance, Chie Ogawa investigates the effect of pretask planning on oral performance. In a Japanese-language article, Keita Kikuchi and Hideki Sakai explore the changes in motivation among Japanese learners of English during secondary school, based on a survey of university students. In the Research Forum, Junichiro Takeno, Ken Tamai, and Shigenobu Takatsuka also consider performance and look at the word length effect in remembering vocabulary.

Reviews

In the first of seven book reviews, John Cross examines a volume that argues for the use of corpus linguistics to better research, analyze, and understand grammar. In the first of a series of reviews in collaboration with the JALT Task-Based Learning SIG, Martin Hawkes tackles Mike Longâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s book, Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. The third review, from Laura MacGregor, explores a volume on the practice and implementation of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for both subject teachers and language teachers. John Nevara then looks at a book about reflective teaching in higher education. Next, Daniel Tang reviews an edited anthology in which the authors address creativity from a theoretical perspective and provide practical applications for the classroom and curriculum. Another review on the topic of TBL comes from Jennifer Louise Teeter, who covers a title focused on aspects of task-based language learning in teaching writing. Akie Yasunaga closes out this issue with a review of Interlanguage: Forty Years Later in which 10 leading scholars celebrate the enduring contribution of Selinkerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seminal work at the inception of the field of SLA.

JALT Journal

Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Message In my 2nd year as JALT Journal Editor, putting together the November issue has become as much a part of summer as matsuri and fireworks. As you read this in the autumn, spare a thought for me sweltering away in the Miyazaki heat. As usual, I have to thank many people for their help and support. The Associate Editor, Eric Hauser, has jumped right in to take over a lot of responsibilities. Of course we could not put the issue together without Aleda Krause and the production team. Greg Scholdt does a lot of work, sometimes at the last minute, reading quantitative manuscripts. My thanks go as always to the reviewers and the authors who work together through a long review process and many revisions. Anne McLellan Howard

Articles Coordination, Teacher Autonomy, and Collaboration in EFL Programs in Japanese Higher Education Caleb Prichard Okayama University Jana Moore Hawai‘i Department of Education Both teacher autonomy and program coordination have potential benefits. Recent research on English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) programs in the United States has suggested that programs tend to have significant levels of coordination and collaboration while maintaining teacher autonomy. Although Japanese universities have long had a culture of teacher autonomy, EFL educators based in higher educational institutions have described efforts to coordinate their programs. However, researchers have not explicitly analyzed EFL programs in Japan to determine how widespread these coordination efforts have become. In this study, we empirically evaluated levels of teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and administration– staff collaboration in EFL programs in Japanese universities and colleges. The results suggest that these programs have high levels of curricular autonomy and general teaching autonomy related to pedagogy and classroom management. In contrast, the programs are reported to have low levels of top-down coordination and, compared to U.S. ESOL programs, significantly less coordination and collaboration.

教師の自律（teacher autonomy）とプログラム内でのトップダウンによる協調（program coordination）には潜在的利益がある。米国のESOL （English for speakers of other languages）プログラムに関する最近の研究によると、教師の自律を維持すると同時に、プログラム内でトップ

JALT Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, November 2016

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

ダウンの協調と協働（ c o l l a b o r a t i o n ）を行う傾向がある。日本の大学では、長年教師の自律を支える文化がある一方で、高等教育機関に勤務する多くの E F L 教育者は、プログラム内の協調に努力してきたと報告している。しかし、日本の E F L プログラムにおいてそのような協調の努力がどの程度行われているかを明確に分析した研究はほとんどない。そこで、本研究では、日本の大学や短大の E F L プログラムにおける教師の自律、トップダウン式による協調、管理部門と教育スタッフ間の協働のレベルの評価を行った。その結果、これらのプログラムは、教授法と教室マネジメントに関して、カリキュラム上、また一般教育上の自律を担保していることを示唆している。対照的に、トップダウン式の協調はあまり行われていないことが報告された。米国におけるESOLプログラムと比較すると、日本のプログラムでは、トップダウンによる協調と協働のレベルが低いことが判明した。

rogram coordination efforts and standardization can conflict with teachers’ desire for autonomy, leading to tension between instructors and the administration (English, 2010; Veugelers, 2004). Research in education suggests that both program coordination and teacher autonomy are necessary. On one hand, oversight and coordination of course objectives, materials, and instruction can maximize efficiency and improve learning outcomes by ensuring that instruction is effective and that different courses complement each other (Brezicha, Bergmark, & Mitra, 2015; Ylimaki, 2012). On the other hand, teacher autonomy allows instructors to adapt their teaching strengths and interests to student needs. Moreover, teacher autonomy is strongly connected to feelings of efficacy and job satisfaction (Thomas, Kaminska-Labbé, & McKelvey, 2005). Considering the benefits of teacher autonomy and program-wide coordination, program administrators need to find ways to offer appropriate levels of both (Prichard & Moore, 2016a). A lack of either teacher autonomy or program coordination may reduce the efficacy of instruction and lead to dissatisfaction among stakeholders. In recent research by the authors concerning teacher autonomy and coordination in 130 English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) programs in higher education in the United States (Prichard & Moore, 2016a), most programs were reported to have somewhat similar levels of coordination and teacher autonomy. However, there was great variation in the results, and follow-up research (Prichard & Moore, 2016b) suggested that many program-specific variables affected the results. Despite the influence that program coordination and teacher autonomy can have on student learning and stakeholders’ satisfaction, the issue has not been examined empirically in EFL programs in Japan. As demands for accountability in Japanese universities once lagged behind world standards (Amano, 1999; McVeigh, 2002), it could be hypothesized that EFL programs in Japan have relatively low levels of co-

Prichard & Moore

ordination. However, the Ministry of Education, Health, Science and Welfare (MEXT) has called for increasing standards (Amano & Poole, 2005; Nagatomo, 2009), and many EFL programs in Japanese universities are reported to have undertaken curricular reforms (e.g., Berger, 2012; Cote, Milliner, McBride, Imai, & Ogane, 2014; Fryer, Stewart, Anderson, Bovee, & Gibson, 2011; Grossman & Cisar, 1997; Hadley, 1999; Prichard, 2006; Sheehan, Sugiura, & Ryan, 2012). Nevertheless, it is unclear how far Japanese EFL program administrators have come in coordinating their programs. In this paper, we describe the results of a survey from 62 EFL programs in Japanese colleges and universities to determine the levels of teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and administration–staff collaboration in these programs. The results will also be compared with U.S. ESOL programs (see Prichard & Moore, 2016a) to begin to explore how and why Japanese programs differ from their U.S. counterparts.

Literature Review

After research on teacher autonomy and program coordination in general educational contexts is reviewed, the issue will be discussed as it relates to English language teaching in Japanese higher education.

Teacher Autonomy

Teacher autonomy can enhance student learning as instruction can be adapted to the specific needs of a class. Indeed, effective teachers have “a strong sense of personal responsibility” for their instruction, and they constantly reflect on how students are progressing (Little, 1995, p. 179). Moreover, ESOL educators have long valued learner autonomy, which necessitates that the curriculum be flexible enough to allow students to pursue their individual goals (Little, 1995). Teacher autonomy may also benefit student learning because autonomy can increase teachers’ commitment (Marks & Louis, 1999). Indeed, high levels of teacher autonomy have correlated with feelings of professionalism among K-12 U.S. teachers (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005) and teacher efficacy among junior high instructors in Italy (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). In contrast, a lack of teacher autonomy correlates with feelings of powerlessness among teachers, and this can lead to distress and tension (Mayer, Donaldson, LeChasseur, Welton, & Cobb, 2013). Language educators are increasingly realizing that language acquisition is highly complex and nonlinear (Beckner et al., 2009), but teachers in English programs are often

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

forced to teach around entrance exams and standardized tests that often ignore this complexity (Crookes, 1997). K-12 research in the United States suggests that teachers often feel compelled to maneuver around restraints on their autonomy (Benson, 2000; English, 2010; Lamb, 2000), especially concerning curricular guidelines, materials selection, and classroom policies (Lepine, 2007; McGrath, 2000). Top-down policies and accountability measures are often seen as bureaucratic, time-consuming measures that hinder effective education and lead to a “culture of fear” (Carpenter, Weber, & Schugurensky, 2012, p. 145).

Top-Down Coordination & Administration–Staff Collaboration

There has been a movement towards increasing accountability and standards in education worldwide (Altbach, 2007; Ylimaki, 2012), and this has included ESOL contexts (Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui, 2015). Top-down governmental reforms are done with good intentions; for example, South Korea implemented a teacher certification scheme to ensure English teaching is communicative (Choi & Andon, 2014). Research based in U.S. high schools suggests that calls for new standards or program-wide reforms also come from campus administration and program leaders who feel it is their duty to maximize learning outcomes (Gonzalez & Firestone, 2013). Leaders may feel that program policies concerning pedagogy and class management can enhance student learning by ensuring that teachers use effective methods and procedures (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Moreover, program-wide curricular coordination can ensure that different courses work together to enhance student learning. Consistency and continuity are the intended results of a coordinated and articulated curriculum (English, 2010). Top-down coordination can also lead to a more program-wide perspective as administrators and core faculty often have more awareness of the role and objectives of the entire program. Such global perspectives can be especially important in programs that have a high percentage of adjunct teachers as these teachers may only be cognizant of their own classes (Prichard & Moore, 2016a). Although teachers often resist any challenges to their autonomy, such resistance highly depends on the leadership style of the administrators and program coordinators. Across professional fields, transformational leadership, which includes building vision, inspiring change, and supporting others, has been shown to be much more effective than transactional leadership, in which leaders aim to control followers through reward and punishment (Bass & Riggio, 2005; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,

Prichard & Moore

1996). Moreover, program coordination does not need to be top-down; teachers can be involved in program-wide planning through administration–staff collaboration or teacher leadership (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Teacher collaboration correlated with a sense of teacher efficacy in second language education (Crookes, 1997) and in general education in the United States (Moore & Esselman, 1992). In research of middle school teachers in Hong Kong (Pang, 1996) and elementary school teachers in the Netherlands (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011), teachers who collaborate in program decision making have reported being more engaged and satisfied with their jobs. As both teacher autonomy and program-wide coordination have many benefits, the question might be raised as to whether programs should have somewhat similar levels of each. ESOL programs in the United States are reported to have relatively similar levels of teacher autonomy and top-down coordination and high levels of administration–staff collaboration (Prichard & Moore, 2016a). However, as is discussed below, there are several contextspecific variables that influence programs to be more coordinated or to have more teacher autonomy, so there may not be one ideal for all programs (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). Moreover, research explicitly examining this issue among EFL programs in Japan has been relatively sparse, and it is not clear how Japanese EFL teachers feel about teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and administration–faculty collaboration.

Coordination and Teacher Autonomy in Japan

A study of Japanese cultural norms might lead one to believe that Japan’s educational programs would have much more coordination than in the United States. Although Hofstede’s influential work on cultural dimensions (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.) has been criticized for being theoretically problematic and flawed in its research methods (e.g., Baskerville-Morley, 2005), the data suggest that Japanese culture tends to have a strong orientation towards uncertainty avoidance, restraint, long-term orientation, masculinity (e.g., highly valuing achievement), hierarchy, and collectivism. Although these claims may be overstated, all of these constructs are seemingly more compatible with coordination than individual autonomy. In direct contrast to these findings, Japanese colleges and universities have long had high levels of teacher autonomy and low levels of coordination (Amano, 1999), and this has also been the case among EFL programs in Japan (Nagatomo, 2009; Stewart, 2005). Nevertheless, there has been a recent movement towards coordination and accountability, and several

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

EFL authors in Japan have described attempts to coordinate their EFL programs (e.g., Berger, 2012; Sheehan, Sugiura, & Ryan, 2012). In the following sections, we will examine variables that may be leading to increased levels of coordination in Japanese programs.

External Pressure

External pressure, such as maintaining accreditation or dealing with demanding stakeholders, may influence programs to have more coordination (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). In U.S. ESOL programs, external pressure predicted levels of coordination. However, this variable may not be as strong in Japanese higher education as it is not as regulated as are other levels of education (Nagatomo, 2012; Poole, 2003). In McVeigh’s (2002) critique of Japanese tertiary education, he went so far as to label it a “charade” (p. 10) and a “myth” (p. 14) because so little is expected of it. In the late 1990s, Japanese universities lacked accreditation, assessments, and course evaluations (Poole, 2003). However, since the turn of the century, pressure on higher education has greatly increased, partly because colleges need to increase market accountability to attract students in the age of decreasing student population (Cooper, 2014; Goodman, 2009). Although this is especially the case among private universities as tuition is their primary revenue source, public universities have different pressures. Public universities became independent bodies formally separated from MEXT in 2004, and they have been required to increase accountability and efficiency through planning, self-assessment, external evaluation, and performance-based funding (Yamamoto, 2014). It is clear that these top-down pressures have had some effect. For example, in universities throughout Japan, administrators have started requiring that syllabi be posted publicly, and course evaluations are now widely administered (Amano & Poole, 2005; Nagatomo, 2009). More specifically related to EFL programs, MEXT has continued to push to improve the English proficiency of students in Japan to increase global competitiveness (MEXT, 2014). This bureaucratic pressure has led college administrators to strive to increase their students’ English proficiency test scores through program-wide reforms. For example, Sheehan et al. (2012) explained that their university used significant funds to purchase e-learning software, and in turn, the EFL program felt obliged to require students to use it and to create assessments for all staff to use. However, there can also be resistance to outside pressures as influential stakeholders in Japanese universities often resist reforms (Hadley, 1999).

Prichard & Moore

According to Yamamoto (2014), the effect of many of MEXTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accountability initiatives has been â&#x20AC;&#x153;marginalâ&#x20AC;? (p. 122), and each faculty still has extensive autonomy. Overall, it seems that Japanese EFL programs still face less external pressure than do U.S. programs, which are increasingly pressured to undergo a strict and lengthy accreditation process.

Program Complexity

Prichard and Moore (2016b) hypothesized that programs with numerous courses, levels, and class sections would have more top-down coordination and less teacher autonomy because these programs need to be more coordinated and the course content clearly articulated in order to avoid overlap (see Altbach, 2007). This was indeed the case among U.S. ESOL programs. Programs with more courses and levels tend to be those with more students and teachers, and Japanese EFL programs are even larger than U.S. ESOL programs as Japanese EFL programs often serve the entire university population. For example, Fryer et al. (2011) described a curricular coordination project for a Japanese EFL program with 200 classes. To ensure consistency, program administrators adopted mandatory materials and assessments. Cote et al. (2014) described several coordination efforts that were initiated because the program was rapidly expanding. Berger (2012) described a curricular project that was initiated to deal with inconsistency among classes that caused issues when students advanced to the next level. However, not all programs are complex. For example, some faculties in Japanese universities require just one general English class. In addition, courses in U.S. programs tend to be coordinated by proficiency level, not year, and this means the course content at each level needs to be clearly articulated (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). Therefore, it is unclear if Japanese programs are more complex than their U.S. counterparts.

Qualified Program Leaders (Compared to Staff)

In previous research, Prichard and Moore (2016b) also hypothesized that there would be more coordination and less teacher autonomy in programs in which program leaders are more qualified and experienced than the rest of the staff. This is because less qualified and novice teachers tend to need and accept more support and guidance (Hoy & Spero, 2005). This was found to be a significant predictor of the level of coordination in U.S. programs (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). In Japanese universities, part-time teachers outnumber full-time staff (MEXT, 2015), and these part-time staff members often lack professional

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

development opportunities. Moreover, according to Stewart (2005), some EFL teachers in Japan lack training in second language acquisition, and many lack “even the remotest notion of what method is most relevant” (p. 282). However, because of the increasing pressure to reform, the makeup of faculties has changed. More universities in Japan are requiring higher qualifications for new staff, including expertise in applied linguistics, experience overseas for Japanese teachers, a PhD, or all of these (Goodman, 2009; Nagatomo, 2009). Also, as some colleges are closing, new positions are becoming more competitive and new hires are increasingly qualified. Finally, program leaders in Japanese EFL programs are not always more qualified than other staff members. Although the practice is changing (Yamamoto, 2014), many institutions in Japan still rely on length of experience for promotion; many of the older generation who have been promoted to leadership roles have degrees in nonrelated fields and some lack interest in applied linguistics (Nagatomo, 2009). Therefore, compared to U.S. programs, which often hire qualified and experienced directors and coordinators, EFL programs in Japan may be led by those with fewer qualifications or less willingness to coordinate a program. Of course, there are many exceptions, and research has not explicitly examined this issue. Overall, it is unclear if this variable will be more or less influential in Japanese EFL programs.

Feasibility of Coordination

In the United States, various contexts were found to be conducive to coordination and thus have more coordination and collaboration (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). Factors include teachers’ willingness to share ideas and whether teachers and administrators have time and a means to collaborate. In Japanese programs, there are often large differences in how instructors teach depending on their backgrounds (Nagatomo, 2009; Stewart, 2005), and this can lead to tension (Goodman, 2009). Stewart’s (2005) interviews of several English teachers revealed how much teachers can disagree on English education: Because [my colleague] has this image that he’s in an Oxford college giving tutorials to people about things that he’s interested in, like . . . biblical cartography . . . . [He] doesn’t want to have anything to do with language teaching . . . . So anyway, he makes me sick, really. I’d like to shoot him and get somebody who’s really interested in language and it’d make things so much better. (p. 206)

Prichard & Moore

It is clear that in such a context, autonomy is easier than collaboration and coordination. Other EFL programs face other challenges that threaten the success of coordination. For example, Prichard (2006) described the frequent turnover rate among teachers and coordinators (because of their nontenured status) as the main reason for the lack of coordination of one EFL program. Overall, it seems Japanese programs may face many challenges to coordinating their programs.

Consistency in Student Needs

Previous research (Prichard & Moore, 2016b) suggested that programs in which student needs vary may be more difficult to coordinate. Although this variable was not a factor in the U.S. data, it may be influential in other settings. Japanese EFL students vary widely in their experiences, proficiency, and motivation, but there may be less variation when compared to U.S. ESOL contexts: A great majority of Japanese students who enter universities are native Japanese speakers with 6 years of formal English education. Conversely, Japanese classes tend to be fairly large, and this reduces the ability of teachers to adapt to meet studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs. In contrast, classes in U.S. ESOL programs are smaller and the student population is more variable, which suggests significant levels of teacher autonomy may be necessary to adapt to those needs.

Summary

Context-specific variables are influential in predicting whether a program has more coordination and collaboration. Although the context has changed significantly in Japan in recent years, two context-specific factors promoting coordination are still relatively lacking in Japanese EFL programs, at least compared to the United States: external pressure and feasibility. Based on these contextual factors, it is hypothesized that Japanese programs will have somewhat more teacher autonomy than coordination and collaboration. Moreover, it is hypothesized that these measures will be significantly different than in U.S. programs.

Methods

In this study we aimed to identify levels of teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;faculty collaboration in Japanese EFL programs in higher education. Sixty-two programs were involved (39 in

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

private universities, 18 in public universities, and five in 2-year colleges). One core faculty member from each of the institutions agreed to participate and took a survey online.

Instrument and Analysis

The survey consisted of four variables: general autonomy, curricular autonomy, top-down coordination, and administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;staff collaboration (see Appendix). The survey used in this study was identical to the one used in our U.S. ESOL study (Prichard & Moore, 2016a) to allow for comparison. It had been piloted in both countries to increase its validity and was made available in English and Japanese. Each construct consisted of five 4-point Likert-scale items. Using the statistical software Winsteps (Linacre, 2012), the Likert-scale values were converted to an interval scale so that the items could reliably be compared, with the Winsteps default of zero logits equal to the mean item difficulty (Bond & Fox, 2007). Items with higher logit measures indicate responses that were more difficult to agree with. Persons with higher logit measures are relatively more inclined to agree with the items defining the construct. To check the construct validity of the questionnaire, four separate Rasch analyses were run: one for each construct. Using the Likert-scale infit and outfit range of 0.5-1.5 (Bond & Fox, 2007), the initial analysis showed good fit for all items except one, which had an infit means squared of 1.77. The item did not affect the overall unidimensionality for the construct, and because it had fit well with the U.S. data, we retained this item for comparison purposes. The results of the Japanese data were then compared to the data collected from the U.S. ESOL programs (Prichard & Moore, 2016a). Using Winsteps, the responses from both countries were combined, a demographic indicator was used to calibrate the data to the same zero point, and then differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated to determine whether the items were interpreted consistently between the two groups. The new person measures, from the combined data, were then used to make comparisons and conduct t tests.

Results

As is shown in Table 1, Japanese EFL programs in higher education tended to have strong agreement with the general autonomy and the curricular autonomy constructs. The logit mean of 0.167 suggests that programs

Prichard & Moore

tended to have less agreement on whether their programs involved administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;staff collaboration. Finally, the participants showed a tendency to disagree with the top-down coordination construct.

Table 1. Logit Results in the Japanese EFL Programs (N = 62)

Construct

Top-down coordination Curricular autonomy General autonomy

Adminâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;staff collaboration

Logit M

SEM

-0.706

1.034

0.131

0.167

1.780

0.226

1.120 1.445

1.833 1.753

0.233 0.223

Descriptive statistics for various program types are presented in Table 2. Faculty members in programs in 4-year public universities reported more coordination and collaboration and less teacher autonomy than did those in private universities. Programs with fewer than 100 students showed less agreement with the general autonomy items and relatively more agreement with the top-down coordination construct compared to larger programs. Finally, faculty members in programs that relied more on adjunct teachers, as opposed to core faculty, reported somewhat less top-down coordination, somewhat more general and curricular autonomy, and much less collaboration.

Comparing Japanese and U.S. Programs

New person measure logits based on combining data sets from Japanese and U.S. programs show great differences in management styles in the two countries (see Figure 1). The mean results suggest that programs in the United States have more coordination and collaboration than Japanese programs. In contrast, Japanese programs offer more curricular and general autonomy. The results of independent t tests of the United States and Japan data indicate that the differences concerning all constructs are statistically significant (see Table 3). However, the results of the Mantel-Haenszel test indicated that two items in the general autonomy construct were statistically significant (p = .02 and p = .04), suggesting the differences between the Japan and U.S. populations cannot be safely compared. No other items showed evidence of differences between the two national groups.

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics by Program Type and Size, and Core Faculty Percentage

Top-down coordination Group (N) Logit 95% (SD) CI Overall (62) -0.71 [-0.97, (1.03) -0.44]

Construct General Curricular autonomy autonomy Logit 95% Logit 95% (SD) CI (SD) CI 1.44 [1.00, 1.12 [0.65, (1.75) 1.89] (1.83) 1.59]

Adminâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;staff collaboration Logit 95% (SD) CI 0.17 [-0.29, (1.78) 0.62]

Program type 2-yr. college -0.84 (5) (0.34) 4-yr. private -1.02 (39) (0.17) 4-yr. public .01 (18) (0.16)

[-1.78, 0.10] [-1.36, -0.68] [-0.32, 0.34]

2.03 [0.77, (0.45) 3.29] 1.69 [1.15, (0.26) 2.21] 0.76 [-0.24, (0.47) 1.76]

0.53 [-0.73, (0.45) 1.79] 1.37 [0.76, (0.30) 2.0] 0.73 [-0.18, (0.43) 1.65]

-0.46 [-3.06, (0.94) 2.14] -0.16 [-0.75, (0.29) 0.42] 1.06 [0.37, (0.33) 1.74]

-0.23 (0.29) -0.72 (0.25) -0.72 (0.38) -0.88 (0.20)

[-0.87, 0.41] [-1.27, -0.18] [-1.59, 0.16] [-1.29, -0.46]

0.64 (0.69) 1.70 (0.41) 1.28 (0.54) 1.69 (0.31)

0.76 (0.77) 1.21 (0.33) 0.85 (0.43) 1.30 (0.36)

0.68 (0.35) -0.29 (0.60) 0.94 (0.50) -0.06 (0.34)

Program size 0-99 (11) 100-199 (13) 200-299 (9) 300+ (29)

[-0.91, 2.19] [0.81, 2.58] [0.02, 2.53] [1.06, 2.32]

[-0.96, 2.49] [0.48, 1.93] [-0.15, 1.85] [0.56, 2.04]

Core faculty % 0-25 -0.95 [-1.33. 1.66 [1.03, 1.32 [0.62, (26) (0.19) -0.56] (0.30) 2.28] (0.34) 2.02] 26-50 -0.37 [-0.82, 1.11 [0.27, 0.88 [0.07, (23) (0.22) 0.08] (0.41) 1.96] (0.39) 1.69] 51-100 -0.71 [-1.40, 1.48 [0.32, 1.04 [-0.28, (12) (0.31) -0.02] (0.52) 2.63] (0.60) 2.37] Note. Based on Rasch item measure logits; CI = confidence interval.

[-0.10, 1.46] [-1.59, 1.00] [-0.22, 2.10] [-0.76, 0.64]

-0.32 [-0.88, (0.27) 0.25] 0.66 [-0.14, (0.39) 1.45] 0.64 [-0.52, (0.53) 1.80]

Prichard & Moore

Japan

1.5

0.5

Coordination Collaboration -0.5

Curricular Autonomy

General Autonomy

-1

Figure 1. Program management constructs, as measured in logits.

Table 3. Statistical Analysis of the Difference Between the Japanese and U.S. Programs

Construct

Leveneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s test for equality of variances F

Sig.

Top-down 1.370 .243 coordination Curricular 14.444 .000* autonomy General autonomy

2.239 .136

t 8.535 -3.103 -0.986

t test for equality of means Difference df Sig. M SE 95% CI (2-tailed) 190 .000 1.617 0.189 [1.24, 1.99] 89.5

190

.003 .325

-0.800 -0.246

0.258 [-1.31, -0.29] 0.249 [-0.77, 0.25] 0.247 [1.165, 2.14]

Adminâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.687 .408 6.697 190 .000 1.650 staff collaboration Note. Based on Rasch item measure logits; * = equal variances not assumed; Sig. = significance; CI = confidence interval.

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Discussion As reported in the literature, many Japanese EFL programs in higher education have made coordination efforts, but tightly coordinated programs do not seem to be the norm in Japan, based on the results of the current study. The findings indicate that programs tend to allow significant levels of teacher autonomy and that they have much less top-down coordination. The comparison of Japanese and U.S. ESOL programs in higher education suggests that there are significant differences in how the two countries manage their programs, with Japanese programs having less coordination and collaboration.

Top-Down Coordination and Administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Staff Collaboration

Respondents from Japan tended to disagree with the items in the top-down coordination construct. Items with particularly low agreement concerned whether instructors were supervised and whether instructors received preservice training. In contrast, programs in the United States tended to agree that they had coordination. Results of t tests confirmed the differences are statistically significant, as hypothesized. Responses concerning Japanese programs also indicated that they have less administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;staff collaboration than do U.S. programs. In the United States, this was the most agreed upon construct, but it was third in the Japanese data. The least agreed upon item in the construct concerned whether instructors work together with program leaders to design the curriculum.

Teacher Autonomy

EFL teachers in Japan reportedly have considerable freedom in general autonomy, including pedagogy and classroom management. The most agreed upon construct in the survey related to whether each instructor chose the teaching methods used in class. These programs also tended to allow significant levels of curricular autonomy. For example, most respondents agreed that each teacher had a say in deciding the content and skills taught. Although the DIF analysis suggested differences in general autonomy between the Japan and U.S. populations cannot be reliably compared, there was a significant difference in the comparison of curricular autonomy. U.S. programs were reported to have much less curricular autonomy than general autonomy. Some programs in the United States reported that autonomy was dependent on curricular coordination: As long as students were meeting the stated learning objectives, teachers could teach how they pleased. Although

Prichard & Moore

more research is needed, this does not seem to be the case in the Japanese programs, as they allowed high levels of both curricular and general autonomy.

Variation

The data suggest that teachers are allowed more autonomy in certain programs than in others. In fact, there was even more variation in the two teacher autonomy constructs in Japanese programs than in the U.S. programs. One reason for the variation could be program-specific variables, which will be explored more in follow-up research. Variables collected in this study only related to program type, student numbers, and the position of the faculty, but these data did show some interesting results. Private colleges reported lower levels of coordination than public universities, perhaps suggesting that MEXTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demands for standards and accountability are indeed influential for public universities. As in similar U.S. programs, Japanese programs relying on adjunct teachers reported less coordination and collaboration. This may further highlight the difficulty to design a coordinated program with few full-time faculty and administrators. However, unlike in the United States, in Japan smaller rather than bigger programs reported more coordination Another reason for the variance in the data may be due to administrator variables; that is, different program leaders have drastically different leadership styles irrespective of the context in which they work. Qualitative data in the U.S. study suggested that administrator variables may have been the largest cause of the variation in the program management (Prichard & Moore, 2016b). This may also be an important factor in Japan, as shown by Amano (1999) in descriptions of the different attitudes professors have about increasing standards and accountability. If a professor who feels strongly that universities must have accountability is the director, the program is likely to be more coordinated regardless of the context variables. This needs to be explored in further research.

Potential Reasons for Japan and U.S. Differences

There are several possible reasons why faculty in Japanese programs tended to report less coordination and collaboration than was found in ESOL programs in the Unites States. Many of these ideas were explored in the literature, such as the long-standing culture of teacher autonomy in Japanese universities. Two variables described in the literature review (external pressure and feasibility of coordinating the program) suggested

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

that U.S. programs would have more coordination. Although these constructs will be analyzed empirically in follow-up research, data collected already concerning program size suggest feasibility may be a factor: Japanese programs have fewer full-time staff and rely even more on part-time instructors than do programs in the United States.

Limitations

One potential limitation in the current research study is that 96 of the 158 programs we contacted chose not to participate in the study. It is unclear why respondents from certain programs chose not to participate, but the management style of these programs may be different from the style of the programs that participated. In other words, it is unclear if the data collected in this study adequately represent EFL programs in Japan. Finally, this stage of the research consisted solely of Likert-scale items with no qualitative component, such as open-end questions. Follow-up research should utilize such procedures to better verify, explore, and explain the quantitative data.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that Japanese EFL programs based in higher education have high levels of teacher autonomy, including both curricular and general autonomy. In contrast, faculty members reported less collaboration and much less top-down coordination compared to U.S. programs. Japanese programs are also reported to have significantly more curricular autonomy. However, it would be premature to conclude prescriptively that Japanese programs are managed better or worse than U.S. programs based on these findings. Although research suggests that teacher autonomy, coordination, and collaboration are all important, research has not shown what the ideal balance is. The ideal likely varies from program to program based on context-specific variables. Although future research is necessary, the findings in this study have several possible implications. First, educators and scholars who are working in the two countries may benefit from being cognizant of the ways in which programs operate differently. For example, a program coordinator with experience in the United States who is hired to lead a program in Japan would benefit from knowing that Japanese EFL programs tend to have less coordination. Second, it may be useful for educators in Japan to consider why their programs may have less coordination and collaboration than their United States counterparts. It could be that teacher autonomy is needed

Prichard & Moore

because of valid program-specific variables, such as the availability of qualified teachers and small classes in which teachers can adjust to student needs. Indeed, there are many benefits and reasons to have teacher autonomy, and some programs would likely benefit from having even more. On the other hand, a lack of coordination in a program may simply be because the organizational culture favors autonomy or that the program managers have a laissez-faire leadership style. In some cases, a thorough program review may indicate that more curricular coordination would benefit student learning outcomes and better satisfy other stakeholders. Caleb Prichard is an Associate Professor in the Language Education Center at Okayama University. He has been involved in administrating four ESOL programs in Japan. Jana Moore has been teaching ESOL for over 13 years in Japan and the United States. She has a PhD in applied linguistics and currently resides in Hawai‘i.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Tradition and transition: The international imperative in higher education (Vol. 7). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Amano I. (1999). Daigaku: Chousen no jidai [Universities: An era of challenge]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

Amano, I., & Poole, G. S. (2005). The Japanese university in crisis. Higher Education, 50, 685-711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6372-y Baskerville-Morley, R. F. (2005). A research note: The unfinished business of culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 389-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.002 Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., . . . Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 111-117). London, UK: Longman.

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Berger, M. (2012). A critical review of an on-going university English curriculum reform project. Polyglossia, 22, 167-178. Retrieved from <http://www.apu. ac.jp/rcaps/uploads/fckeditor/publications/polyglossia/Polyglossia_V22_Berger.pdf> Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Brezicha, K., Bergmark, U., & Mitra, D. L. (2015). One size does not fit all: Differentiating leadership to support teachers in school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 96-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14521632 Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001 Carpenter, S., Weber, N., & Schugurensky, D. (2012). Views from the blackboard: Neoliberal education reforms and the practice of teaching in Ontario, Canada. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10, 145-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.647401

Choi, T. H., & Andon, N. (2014). Can a teacher certification scheme change ELT classroom practice?, ELT Journal, 68, 12-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct059 Cooper, M. (2014). The influence of global and local pressures on faculties. In C. Scholz & V. Stein (Eds.), The dean in the university of the future (pp. 136-146). Mering, Germany: Rainer Hampp Verlag.

Cote, T., Milliner, B., McBride, P., Imai, M., & Ogane, E. (2014). Orientation for ELF teachers: Lessons learned. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 61-68). Tokyo: JALT. Crookes, G. (1997). What influences what and how second and foreign language teachers teach? The Modern Language Journal, 81, 67-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/329161 English, F. W. (2010). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and leading the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fryer, L. K., Stewart, J., Anderson, C. J., Bovee, H. N., & Gibson, A. (2011). Coordinating a vocabulary curriculum: Exploration, pilot, trial and future directions. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 86-96). Tokyo: JALT.

Prichard & Moore

Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts, Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 383-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311528 Goodman, R. (2009). The Japanese professoriate. In G. S. Poole & T. Chen (Eds.), Higher education in East Asia: Neoliberalism and the professoriate (pp. 15-31). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Grossman, D., & Cisar, L. (1997). Renovating required English classes at Kanto Gakuen University. The Language Teacher, 21(3), 31-32, 35.

Hadley, G. S. (1999). Innovative curricula in tertiary ELT: A Japanese case study. ELT Journal, 53, 92-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.2.92 The Hofstede Centre. (n.d.). What about Japan? Retrieved from <http://geerthofstede.com/japan.html>

Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 Kibler, A., ValdĂŠs, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-based educational reform mean for English language learner populations in primary and secondary schools? TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 433-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.183

Lamb, T. E. (2000). Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urban context. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 118-127). London, UK: Longman. Lepine, S. A. (2007). The ruler and the ruled: Complicating a theory of teaching autonomy. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication No. 3291145) Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps (version 3.75.0) [Computer software]. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps. Available from <www.winsteps.com> Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23, 175-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(96)90027-2 Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 707-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x99355003

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Mayer, A. P., Donaldson, M. L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2013). Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 695-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492793

McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100-110). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

MEXT. (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 top global university project [Press release]. Retrieved from <http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf>

MEXT. (2015). Gakkou kihon chousa—heisei 27 nendo (kakuteichi) kekka no gaiyou [Basic school survey—2015 (definite value) summary of results]. Retrieved from <www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/chousa01/kihon/kekka/k_detail/1365622.htm> Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Nagatomo, D. H. (2009). An investigation of the professional identity of Japanese teachers of English in Japanese higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from <https://www. academia.edu/2109945/An_Investigation_of_the_Professional_Identity_of_Japanese_Teachers_of_English_in_Japanese_Higher_Education> Nagatomo, D. H. (2012). Exploring Japanese university English teachers’ professional identity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pang, N. S. K. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model. Journal of Educational Administration, 34, 64-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239610112114 Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 37-53. Retrieved from <http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ718115.pdf> Poole, G. S. (2003). Higher education reform in Japan: Amano Ikuo on ‘the university in crisis.’ International Education Journal, 4(3), 149-176. Prichard, C. (2006). Determining the balance between teacher autonomy and curriculum coordination. The Language Teacher, 30(6), 9-14.

Prichard & Moore

Prichard, C., & Moore, J. (2016a). The balance of teacher autonomy and top-down coordination in ESOL programs. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 190-201.

Prichard, C., & Moore, J. (2016b). Variables influencing teacher autonomy, administrative coordination, and collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 54, 58-74. Sheehan, M. D., Sugiura, K, & Ryan, J. (2012). Online TOEIC, extensive reading, and e-learning: Implementation of common, curriculum-wide English assignments in a Japanese university. 静岡文化芸術大学研究紀要 [Shizuoka University of Art and Culture Research Bulletin], 12(3), 39-45.

Stewart, A. (2005). Teaching positions: A study of identity in English language teachers in Japanese higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of London, UK.

Thomas, C., Kaminska-Labbé, R., & McKelvey, B. (2005). Managing the control/ autonomy dilemma. Working paper, University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis, France. Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229046551> Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11400185

Veugelers, W. (2004). Between control and autonomy: Restructuring secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 141-160. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JEDU.0000033070.80545.01 Yamamoto, K. (2014). The effects of new public management on the autonomy of faculties in Japan. In C. Scholz & V. Stein (Eds.), The dean in the university of the future (pp. 115-126). Mering, Germany: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Ylimaki, R. M. (2012). Curriculum leadership in a conservative era. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 304-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11427393

York-Barr J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Appendix: Survey Constructs and Sample Items Dependent Variables Curricular Autonomy • •

The instructors write their own syllabus for their classes. Each class focuses on the goals/objectives determined by the instructor.

•

Each instructor selects the teaching methods and strategies used for his/her own class. Lesson planning is under each instructor’s control.

General Autonomy

•

Top-down Coordination • •

Instructors are observed by program administrators/core faculty. Instructors receive a program handbook that describes, in detail, the courses and/or teaching approaches.

Administration–Staff Collaboration • •

Each instructor helps form the curriculum by working together with program administrators/core faculty. Each instructor is encouraged to share ideas about the program.

Examining the Effects of Types of Pretask Planning on Oral Performances Chie Ogawa Rikkyo University, Japan In this study, I explored the effects of pretask planning on the oral performance in monologue tasks of Japanese university students. The participants in this study were 29 first-year Japanese university students. A Latin square design was employed. The participants did a monologue narrative task with four different types of planning: solo-written brainstorming, paired-interactive planning, teacher-led planning, and no planning. For each planning condition, 58 speech samples were analyzed totaling 232 speech samples in all. The speakers’ oral performances were audio recorded and analyzed based on the CAF (complexity, accuracy, and fluency) framework. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results indicated that teacher-led planning and pair-work planning had a significant effect on complexity in students’ speaking performance when compared to the no-planning condition. The importance of input-mining and teachers’ roles is discussed.

本研究は、日本人大学生のスピーキングに焦点を当て、モノローグ型タスクを行う前の準備活動（pretask planning）の効果について調査した。研究参加者は29名の大学1年生である。ラテン方格デザインを用いた。モノローグ型のスピーキング・タスクを行う前に、次の準備活動を行った（個別ブレインストーミング、ペアワーク、教師主導型、準備なし）。事前準備活動ごとに、58のスピーチサンプルが分析され、合計で232のスピーチが分析された。録音された音声データは文字起こしされ、CAF指標（complexity, accuracy, fluency）に沿って分析された。多変量分散分析の結果から、学習者は、教師主導とペアワークによる事前準備活動を行うと、より複雑な文章を発することがわかった。タスクを行う前のインプットの効果とタスク活動における教師の役割について教育的な示唆を述べる。

esearch into pretask planning has received considerable attention from second language researchers for more than 15 years (Foster & Skehan, 1999; Ortega, 2005). According to Ellis (2005), planning is an

JALT Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, November 2016

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

essential problem solving activity because it allows speakers to tackle the issues of “what to say and how to say it” (Ellis, 2005, p. 3). This pretask planning can be either rehearsal or strategic planning (Ellis, 2005, 2009b). In rehearsal planning, learners have an opportunity to complete a task before performing it, whereas in strategic planning, students are provided time to plan what content to express and what language to use without an opportunity for rehearsal. Strategic planning can take many different forms, including activities led by the teacher, activities with other learners, and solitary activities (Ellis, 2009b). Planning and its role in task-based language teaching (TBLT) are of theoretical and practical interest because planning is thought to help learners maximize their competence in task performance (Ellis, 2005). Examining and understanding how pretask planning affects task performance have considerable pedagogical benefits. We know that pretask planning allows learners to be better prepared to achieve communicative goals, and that it can maximize learners’ readiness to engage in communicative tasks regardless of background knowledge (Bui, 2014). We also know that learners typically attend to content during pretask planning because that is the best way to achieve communicative goals (e.g., Park, 2010; Sangarun, 2005). However, in many previous studies that found these benefits (e.g., Ortega, 1999; Wendel, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997), it was not clear how learners planned during the planning time because the planning was unguided or the planning method was not controlled. Therefore, the primary purpose of the current study was to investigate what kind of pretask planning improves learners’ oral performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Ortega (1999), Kawauchi (2005), and Sangarum (2005), among others, explored pretask planning and its effects on learners’ oral performance with a particular focus on CAF. Many of these researchers have reported that pretask planning enhances oral fluency (Foster & Skehan, 2005; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) as well as syntactic complexity (Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). The case for accuracy, however, is less clear, as researchers have reported cases of no improvement (Bui, 2014; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) as well as cases where minor improvements were seen (Mehnert, 1998; Sangarun, 2005). These findings suggest that a trade-off effect occurs either (a) between fluency and accuracy or (b) between complexity and accuracy (Ellis, 2009b; Skehan, 1998).

Theoretical Background

One theoretical explanation for these findings about speaking is Levelt’s (1989) speech model. Levelt’s model, which was developed to describe L1

Ogawa

speaking processes, can also explain how information processing components might work for L2 speakers. This model has been used by L2 researchers to understand speech production (for a comprehensive explanation, see Izumi, 2003; Lambert & Kormos, 2014, Skehan, 2009). Levelt’s speech model comprises three stages: the conceptualizer, the formulator, and the articulator. In the conceptualizer stage, speakers develop the propositional content of the message and decide what to say. For example, speakers select the relevant information, order this information, and keep track of what was said before. The product of these mental activities is called a preverbal message. Speakers then transform the preverbal message into linguistic form in the formulator stage, in which appropriate lemmas—form and meaning pairs that are contained in the lexicon and that represent the lexical entry’s meaning and syntax—are selected and grammatical and phonological rules are applied to create a speech plan. The third stage is the articulator, which is where the speech plan is converted into spoken language. During this stage, speakers’ internal linguistic knowledge is turned into audible sounds. Skehan (2009) postulated a connection between Levelt’s speech model and task-based speaking performance. Skehan explained that native speakers can engage in parallel processing (e.g., the formulator deals with the previous conceptualizer cycles while the conceptualizer simultaneously attends to the next cycle) because their mental lexicons are extensive and well organized. On the other hand, nonnative speakers’ formulator stage requires more effort, and it includes repair and replacement. Skehan’s (1998) limited attentional capacity theory is based on the notion that learners’ working memory and attentional capacity are limited (VanPatten, 1990); thus, language learners are limited in terms of what they can focus on during meaning-oriented communication (Baddeley, 2007). Therefore, Skehan has suggested that raising performance in one area can come at the expense of performance in other areas. In other words, a trade-off can occur between fluency and form and between accuracy and complexity. Skehan also suggested that high-level performances can occur in two out of the three CAF components, but not in all three. Thus, increases in fluency can be accompanied by increases in accuracy or complexity, but not both. In particular, past research has indicated that complexity and accuracy do not increase in tandem. Given that foreign language learners have limited working memory capacity, pretask planning can be beneficial because it can ease the cognitive pressure on learners’ limited working memory capacities as they activate concepts and linguistic forms. Therefore, pretask planning is hypothesized to influence learners’ oral performances positively (Foster & Skehan, 2005;

100

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Ortega, 1999). Although most previous examinations of pretask planning support Skehan’s limited attentional capacity theory (e.g., Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003), they also show that fluency and syntactic complexity development typically occur but accuracy rarely improves (Bui, 2014; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).

Previous Studies of Pretask Planning Types

Previous researchers have investigated the effectiveness of different planning conditions. For instance, Foster and Skehan (1999) examined the effects of three types of strategic planning—teacher-led, solitary, and group-based planning—on 63 learners’ speaking performances in decision-making tasks. They also examined the effects of planning with a focus on form and a focus on meaning. The findings showed that solitary planning and teacher-led planning affected CAF positively. The solitary-planning condition was significantly more effective than the no-planning condition in terms of complexity of student language, and the teacher-led condition was significantly better than the other conditions in terms of accuracy. Indeed, Foster and Skehan reported that the teacher-led condition helped learners attain high levels of complexity and fluency, which led them to produce a well-balanced performance. On the other hand, the group planning condition was not as effective as the authors hypothesized, possibly because the students had not been trained to work in groups. Although Foster and Skehan’s findings showed positive effects for planning, the study had two main limitations. First, group planning might have been ineffective due to the lack of group structure. Group members’ disagreements on how to work collaboratively can interfere with efficient task planning (Batstone, 2005). Second, although the authors concluded that solitary planning was effective, they acknowledged that there was no clear understanding of what the participants in that condition had actually done. Mochizuki and Ortega (2008) investigated how or to what extent teacherguided and unguided planning affected 56 Japanese high school students’ oral story-retelling task performance by comparing three planning conditions: no planning, 5 minutes of unguided planning, and 5 minutes of teacher-guided planning in the form of a handout about English relative clauses. No significant differences were found for fluency and complexity between guided and unguided planning; however, teacher-guided planning enhanced accuracy in terms of correctly formed relative clauses. The researchers interpreted this finding as indicating that pretask instruction focused on linguistic form benefited syntactic accuracy.

Ogawa

101

Kawauchi (2005) examined three types of solitary planning in which the learners used writing, rehearsing, and reading in a counterbalanced withinsubject design that gave each group the opportunity to use each planning type over a 3-week period. The participants (N = 39) first performed a narrative task without planning. In subsequent weeks, each group took part in the three planning conditions: (a) In the writing condition, the participants had 10 minutes to write what they wanted to say when they performed the same task as in the no-planning condition; (b) in the rehearsal condition, the participants rehearsed the task for 10 minutes by talking aloud; and (c) in the reading condition, the participants read a model passage for task performance silently for 10 minutes, and then considered how they could perform the task. Although no statistically significant differences were found among the three planning types in terms of CAF, Kawauchi identified differences between the groups in her analysis of the transcripts. The participants in the reading condition scaffolded lexis and multi-word units from the reading passages. For example, the participants used juice box or play ball when they did the task for the first time without any planning, but they used the lexical items that were similar to words in the teachers’ modeled passage such as vending machine and play with a ball when they did the same task for the second time after reading the model. Based on these findings, Kawauchi concluded that lower proficiency learners benefit from pretask reading because reading the model passage possibly led to more accurate linguistic forms. On the other hand, the participants in the writing and rehearsal conditions attended to the meaning of the story rather than linguistic form.

Purpose of Study

The effects of pretask planning types have varied widely in previous studies (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1999; Kawauchi, 2005; Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008). The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of three distinct planning types on CAF: solitary brainstorming, pair work, and teacher-led planning. Specifically, this study was guided by two research questions. RQ1. To what extent do three planning conditions—solitary brainstorming, pair work, and teacher-led planning—affect students’ oral performance (complexity, accuracy and fluency) compared to a no-planning condition? RQ2. Which of the three planning conditions—solitary brainstorming, pair work, or teacher-led planning—has the greatest

102

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016 impact on enhancing students’ oral performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency?

Method Participants

The participants were 29 first-year Japanese university students (16 female and 13 male students) attending a private university in Japan who were enrolled in compulsory 90-minute English discussion classes held once a week and taught by the researcher. There were four classes of seven to nine students. Each met 14 times during the academic semester. .

Materials and Procedure Monologue Speaking Task

Students’ oral performances on monologue tasks were analyzed. A 3/2/1 task in which the participants expressed their opinions about two topics was used. The original 4/3/2 task was designed to help learners improve oral fluency, automaticity, and proceduralization (see Boers, 2014; De Jong & Perfetti, 2011; Nation, 1989; Thai & Boers, 2016). In this study, a shorter version of the 4/3/2 task, the 3/2/1 task, was employed due to the participants’ limited language proficiency. In the task, one speaker talks about a particular topic for 3 minutes to a partner, retells the information in 2 minutes to a different partner, and then retells it a third time in 1 minute to a third partner. Table 1 shows the topics and questions used in the study. Students learned about the topics in their textbooks during class and the questions used in the study were created based on these topics. While the speakers performed the task, the listeners were instructed not to interrupt with comments and not to ask follow-up questions. After the first speaker performed the task three times, the second speaker spoke on the same topic to three different partners for 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 1 minute. The participants were expected to express their ideas more fluently each time because of the increasing time pressure and the repetition inherent in the task design (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011, p. 538). In this study only the first iterations of the 3/2/1 activity were analyzed because the purpose was to examine the pretask planning effects, not to examine the effects of task repetition. Any examination of the second or third iteration would not clarify whether the learner’s performance was influenced by pretask planning or by the rehearsal in the first or second iteration.

Ogawa

Table 1. Topics and Task Questions for the 3/2/1 Oral Task

103

Week

Topic

Task questions

Language

Have you ever been to a foreign country? Would you like to study abroad in the future? Why and why not?

Language

Is it important for you to study English? Do you think everyone in Japan needs to study English?

Fashion

Media

Globalization What is your favorite manga or anime? Who is your favorite Japanese singer?

7 9

Media

Do you think this universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s students are fashionable? Do you think school uniforms are a good idea?

What clothing stores do you usually go to? Why? What are some important things to consider when you buy new clothes? How do you usually get news? TV? Internet? Newspaper? What is your favorite TV program?

Which celebrities do you respect? Do you respect celebrities or ordinary people?

Globalization Which do you prefer, American movies or Japanese movies? Which do you prefer, Japanese pop culture or Japanese traditional culture?

Research Design

A Latin square design was employed. Table 2 shows the data collection schedule for the four classes included in this study. Each group took part in a different planning condition each week. The participants were exposed to the same condition twice during the experiment. For each planning condition, 58 speech samples were analyzed (29 participants x two times). In total, 232 speech samples were analyzed (29 participants x two times x four planning conditions).

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

104 Week 1 2 3

Table 2. Data Collection Schedule Class A (n = 7)

Class B (n = 6)

Practice BS

5 6 8 9

NP BS

PW NP

Practice TL

NP BS

Class C (n = 6) Class D (n =10) Practice

Practice

PW NP

NP BS

Note. BS = brainstorming condition; TL = teacher-led planning condition; PW = pairwork condition; NP = no-planning condition; Practice = a practice session designed to familiarize the participants with the 3/2/1 oral task.

Planning Conditions

Four planning conditions were used in this study: no planning (NP), brainstorming (BS), pair-work (PW), and teacher-led (TL) planning. The participants in the no-planning condition, which was the control condition in this study, saw the task questions immediately before starting the task and then performed the 3-minute speaking task without engaging in any planning. The participants in the brainstorming condition, which was a solitary planning condition, had 4 minutes to write as many ideas as possible in English about the task topic provided on a handout. They were instructed to write words or phrases rather than complete sentences. For example, when the monologue question was “Is it important to study English?” students brainstormed and wrote associated ideas such as future job, TOEIC, study abroad, globalization, and traveling. The brainstorming condition was designed to help the participants generate ideas and activate relevant concepts before speaking. After the 4-minute brainstorming concluded, the handouts were collected. The participants in the pair-work condition received an instruction sheet and had 4 minutes to ask questions about the topic to a partner. For instance, if one student said, “In my opinion, studying English is important,” their partner asked follow-up questions to elicit more information. Both students asked and answered questions in this condition. For example, a typical example of pair-work planning is as follows:

Ogawa

105

Partner A: In my opinion, English is important to learn. Partner B: Why do you think so? Partner A: It’s mainly because I want to study abroad next year. I would like to improve my English. Partner B: For example, where do you want to study abroad? Partner A: One example is America. It is because I want to live in New York. The pair-work condition was expected to help the participants activate appropriate concepts and better understand what information about the topic would be helpful or interesting for listeners. The participants in the teacher-led planning condition silently followed along while the teacher read a model passage that consisted of 300-400 words. It usually took 1.5 to 2 minutes for the researcher to read the model passage aloud. The aim was to provide the participants with examples of what to talk about and ways to express their ideas. Some useful phrases, such as in my opinion, one reason is, it’s mainly because, and for example, were underlined. After the teacher read the model passage, the handouts were collected. The teacher-led planning can be considered to be a planning condition because students might consider what they will talk about and how they will talk about it while they listen to the teacher’s model. In addition, there were approximately 20-30 seconds after the handouts were collected before the students started the monologue tasks. During that time, students could plan what they wanted to say. The students were not permitted to refer to dictionaries or other external resources during task performance.

Data Collection

In the first week of the semester, the participants practiced the 3/2/1 task without any planning time to become familiar with the task. The students’ oral performances were recorded from the 2nd to the 9th week of the semester. An IC recorder was placed on a desk near each pair of speakers. The first 3 minutes of the participants’ initial 3-minute speaking performance were transcribed by the researcher.

Pruning

The speech samples were transcribed and the self-corrections and repetitions were excluded to produce transcriptions of pruned speech. This transcript was analyzed using the syntactic complexity and syntactic accuracy measures. For pruning, false starts, repeats, and filled pauses were omitted

106

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

as in previous studies (e.g., Kawauchi, 2005; Thai & Boers, 2016). Longer utterances were considered more complex; therefore, self-corrections and repetitions were omitted because they would have increased the complexity measures and decreased the accuracy measures. For example, when a speaker made a self-correction like “She have . . . has,” have was omitted because the speaker noticed the error and self-corrected. Another example is when a speaker engaged in repetition, such as “I think I think I think,” only one instance (i.e., “I think”) was retained. The CAF measures are described in the following sections.

Discourse Analytic Measures Complexity

Syntactic complexity was measured using (a) the number of clauses per ASunit (analysis of speech unit) after pruning and (b) the mean length of the AS-units after pruning (number of words per AS-unit). An AS-unit is defined as “a single speaker’s utterance consisting of an independent clause, or subclausal unit, together with any subordinate clauses associated with either” (Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000, p. 365). The first measurement, which indicates syntactic complexity produced by subordination, was calculated by dividing the total number of clauses by the total number of AS-units using the pruned speech data. The second measurement, which indicates overall complexity (Norris & Ortega, 2009), was calculated by dividing the total number of words by the number of AS-units.

Accuracy

Accuracy refers to the ability to avoid morphosyntactic errors (Ellis, 2009b; Foster & Skehan, 1999). Two measures of accuracy were used: the percentage of error-free clauses after pruning and the percentage of error-free ASunits after pruning. Accuracy was determined by whether or not the learners ultimately produced an accurate utterance. For example, if a learner said, “I feeled . . . I felt sad at that time,” the utterance was considered accurate because the learner noticed the error and self-corrected.

Fluency

Fluency was initially measured using (a) syllables per minute with selfcorrections and false starts and (b) syllables per minute after pruning (see Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Thai & Boers, 2016). This measure was produced using the syllable counter found at <http://www.syllablecount.com>. The

Ogawa

107

speech data were transcribed by the author and then checked by another university teacher. A randomly selected sample of 10% of the total data was examined for complexity and accuracy by two raters. The two raters agreed 91% of the time. Areas of disagreement were discussed until the raters came to an agreement. Before conducting the Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), Pearson correlations were produced to determine the strength of the relationships among the dependent variables. The six dependent variables displayed correlation coefficients between -.21 and .89. Because the two fluency measurements correlated at r = .89, close to the .90 level indicating multicolinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 84), only one fluency variable, syllables per minute after pruning, was used because the measurement is based on the pruned speech as are the complexity and accuracy measures.

Analyses

A one-way MANOVA was run to answer the research questions concerning the effect of planning on the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; oral fluency, complexity, and accuracy. The independent variable was the planning condition (four levels: no planning, brainstorming, pair work, and teacher-led planning), and the dependent variables were the six analytical measures for complexity, accuracy, and fluency.

Results

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for the analytical measures. The teacher-led condition had the highest mean for complexity in terms of both clauses per AS-unit and mean length of AS-unit, and the no-planning condition had the lowest mean scores. The teacher-led condition also generated the highest percentage of error-free clauses and error-free AS-units. The least accurate language was produced under the brainstorming condition. The pair-work condition was the most fluent. The no-planning condition showed the lowest speech data for both measurements.

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

108

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Analytical Measurements for Four Planning Conditions

Measurement Complexity

Clauses per AS-unit

Mean length of AS-unit Accuracy

Error-free clauses

Error-free AS-units Fluency

Syllables per minute (After pruning)

NP M (SD) BS M (SD) PW M (SD) TL M (SD) 1.25 (0.21)

1.35 (0.33)

1.35 (0.29)

1.40 (0.28)

63.21% (17.44)

63.23% (15.94)

62.81% (14.27)

68.74% (14.81)

68.14 (18.06)

70.64 (19.17)

74.54 (20.22)

70.20 (17.93)

8.18 (1.73)

55.74% (17.27)

9.23 (2.35)

50.60% (19.71)

9.26 (2.17)

52.23% (15.87)

9.47 (2.34)

57.60% (16.52)

Note. NP = no-planning condition; BS = brainstorming condition; PW = pair-work condition; TL = teacher-led planning condition.

Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances was performed and found to be significant (p < .01); thus, Pillai’s Trace was used for assessing the MANOVA results. Significant differences were found among the four planning conditions, Pillai’s Trace = .13, F(15, 678) = 2.06, p = .01, partial η2 = .04. Followup ANOVAs and post hoc tests using the Dunnett C method were therefore conducted. The alpha level was set at .02 using a Bonferonni calculator (<http://www.quantitativeskills.com/sisa/calculations/bonfer.php>) to avoid committing a Type I error. This alpha level was arrived at using an initial alpha level of .05, five comparisons, and an average correlation among the variables of .39. This adjustment provides a balance between the possibility of committing Type I and Type II errors. As shown in Table 4, the difference among the task conditions was significant for two of the dependent variables: clauses per AS-unit, F(3, 228) = 3.24, p = .02, η2 = .041, and mean length of AS-unit, F(3, 228) = 4.12, p = .007, η2 = .051. The results for the remaining three variables—error-free clauses, error-free AS-units, and syllables per minute after pruning—were not significant.

Ogawa

109

Table 4. Follow-Up ANOVA Summary Table Analytic measure

Measurement

Accuracy

Clauses per AS-unit Error-free clauses

.02

.04

Error-free AS-units

3.24

2.63

.05

.03

Complexity

Fluency

Mean length of AS-units Syllables per minute (after pruning)

3 3

4.12 2.09 1.16

.007 .10 .33

Îˇ2

.05 .03 .01

Dunnettâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s C post hoc tests were conducted for clauses per AS-unit to investigate differences in the efficacy of the planning conditions on the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; oral performance (complexity). There were significant differences between the teacher-led condition and no-planning condition in terms of clauses per AS-unit, as well as significant differences between (a) the teacher-led condition and the no-planning condition and (b) the pair-work condition and no-planning condition for mean length of AS-units. Overall, the results indicated that teacher-led planning and pair-work planning were more effective than no planning for promoting syntactic complexity.

Discussion

In sum, the MANOVA results and descriptive statistics showed that (a) students in the teacher-led planning condition produced more complex sentences in terms of more clauses per AS-unit and longer utterances compared to the no-planning condition; (b) students in the pair-work condition also produced more complex utterances in terms of making longer utterances; (c) although the differences were nonsignificant, there was a trend toward greater accuracy in the teacher-led planning condition with well-balanced performances in terms of greater complexity and accuracy; and (d) there was a tendency for the pair-work condition to produce utterances with greater fluency. In line with previous findings, this study showed that pretask planning is beneficial compared to a no-planning condition. Generally, pretask planning enhances fluency (see Foster, 1996; Wendel, 1997). However, the results showed that planning was statistically beneficial for complexity only. The participants in the teacher-led condition and the pair-work condition produced significantly more complex utterances than did those in the noplanning condition. This might have occurred for a number of reasons.

110

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

First, the teacher-led condition appeared to give the learners opportunities to consider what they would say. Being exposed to the model input possibly allowed speakers to work with ideas and organize the ideas to be expressed. This suggests that syntactic structure is strongly affected by the conceptualization stage in Levelt’s (1989) model (Skehan, Bei, Li, & Wang, 2012; Wang, 2014). The conceptualizer stage involves drawing information from memory and forming a preverbal plan as input for the formulator stage. When the participants were exposed to a model passage, there was less pressure in the conceptualization stage, which could possibly have allowed them to access and retrieve topic-related lexis relatively easily in the formulation stage. The input provided by the teacher appeared to be reproduced by several students. Of course, we cannot know from observation alone exactly what was processed by the learner from the input, but there was some evidence of students producing similar ideas in their production. For example, under the teacher-led condition, four students said that the reason that they are in favor of school uniforms was that the students lacked a sense of fashion. This reason was similar to the teacher-led model, which stated, “I think school uniforms are a good idea . . . . The second reason is that I am not fashionable. I don’t know what to wear every day.” On the other hand, the reasons given varied more in the no-planning condition. For example, school uniforms were viewed favorably because of social rules, ease of use, and their unifying influence. When a student stated that school uniforms were not a good idea, the reasons were often similar to the teacher-led model: “School uniforms are not comfortable if the weather is too hot or too cold.” Conversely, students in the no-planning condition did not give any reasons related to the weather. This can be explained by Prabhu’s (1987) idea of borrowing, in which the participants tried to fill the gap in their current knowledge by reading related materials. When students know what to say (conceptualization), they can more easily move to the next stage of how to say things (formulation and articulation). Second, it is plausible that teacher-led planning allowed the participants to allocate attentional resources to monitor how to express their ideas. Although what the participants noticed in the input was not investigated in this study, there is a high probability that the participants noticed the target linguistic forms, as salience was increased by underlining them (for studies concerning the effectiveness of typographical cues such as underlining, bolding, and italicization, see Doughty, 1991; Lee & Huang, 2008; Sharwood Smith, 1993). The participants possibly noticed useful lexical multiword

Ogawa

111

units such as one reason is that and it is mainly because. Evidence for this possibility could be seen in some of the phrases that the participants produced: “If I can sing English at karaoke, my friends will be very surprised,” “One reason is that I want to go abroad in the future,” “One reason is if Japanese people study English more, Japanese is not focused on.” These utterances were similar to those in the reading passage, which included the following sentences: “One reason is I want to travel to English speaking country” and “If I have higher TOEIC scores, I might work abroad such as New York or London.” Noticing these linguistic forms in the teacher-provided input might have enabled the learners to use them to produce more syntactically complex utterances. The low oral proficiency learners in this study might have had difficulty accessing long utterances without planning because of limited working memory capacity (Bui, 2014, p. 81). The use of more prefabricated phrases and relatively short expressions might have eased pressure on working memory because these are easily accessible in long-term memory (Bui, 2014). Planning time allowed speakers to produce longer and more complex utterances. Third, the pair-work planning condition might have helped learners to produce greater complexity because this condition possibly functioned as a form of rehearsal. The participants in the pair-work condition asked each other questions about the day’s topic and were expected to elicit each other’s knowledge and develop ideas that they could talk about. This might have constituted a form of rehearsal given that they could repeat similar utterances during the 3/2/1 task even though what they said was not a verbatim repetition of the pair-work condition. These results support Ellis’ (2009b) suggestion that task repetition benefits complexity and fluency. These improvements in syntactic complexity might have occurred because rehearsing during pair-work planning decreased the learners’ cognitive load and allowed for greater chunking of lexical and syntactic units. As Wang (2014) has argued, immediate repetition allows speakers to build on the knowledge and performance of the first enactment, and this possibly influenced speaking processing and language product positively. There are three possible reasons that no significant differences in oral fluency arose. First, there were only 29 participants in this study, so no significant differences in oral fluency might be a result of low statistical power. Second, in terms of time on task, if the participants did not need much planning time, then the time on task (3 minutes) might have provided sufficient time for the students to plan while they performed the task. The relationship between time on task and online planning should be further investigated in

112

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

future studies (see Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Lastly, only one measure of fluency (number of syllables per minute after pruning) was used for the analysis. Because fluency is multidimensional (Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005), a follow-up analysis should be conducted to ascertain if other fluency factors such as repair fluency (e.g., repetition, false starts) or breakdown fluency (e.g., the length of pauses) differed depending on the planning condition. Pretask planning did not significantly increase the participants’ syntactic accuracy, as there were no systematic differences between the planning and no-planning conditions. This finding was consistent with some previous studies (Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). It can be explained by Levelt’s (1989) speech production model in which speakers first attend to conceptualization. Lower proficiency students in particular cannot attend to meaning (here referring to the ideas expressed) and form (complexity or accuracy) simultaneously (Anderson, 1995; Yuan & Ellis, 2003), which leads them to prioritize either form or meaning to achieve their communicative goals. Therefore, without explicit instruction of what to do while planning, learners try to generate ideas rather than focus on syntactic accuracy (Park, 2010). According to Skehan’s limited attentional capacity model, a trade-off between meaning (here referring to fluency) and form occurs while engaging in a task. The findings of this study support this trade-off hypothesis. For example, the brainstorming condition helped the participants produce high fluency scores but accuracy suffered. Another notable finding is that the results did not indicate that the three planning types influenced the learners’ performances to different degrees. No significant differences were found between the individual planning conditions although there was a significant difference between (a) the teacherled and pair-work conditions and (b) the no-planning condition. This result confirmed Kawauchi’s conclusion that “different types of planning did not influence the learners’ performance” (p. 162). In spite of the nonsignificant statistical differences among planning types, teacher-led planning produced the highest mean score for both complexity and accuracy, and the third highest mean score for fluency (see Table 3). Foster and Skehan (1999) also found that teacher-led planning conditions produced the most balanced performances (the highest accuracy and acceptable levels of fluency and complexity) among solitary, group-based, and no-planning conditions. This study’s findings also suggest that teacher-led planning helped the participants produce well-balanced performances.

Ogawa

113

As shown by the descriptive statistics, in addition to complexity gains, recycling language from the teacher-led planning texts contributed to accuracy gains. These results are consistent with the findings of research using similar “input-mining” activities (Boston, 2010; Kawauchi, 2005). In this regard, both teacher-led planning and pair-work planning involve input mining. The pair-work condition allowed the speakers to rely on recycling from input; that is, the language produced by their peers. However, pretask planning without resources to help students verify language did not help them eradicate inaccuracies. The teacher-led condition provided more accurate and richer models for students to mine, which might account for the superior language quality in this condition. Finally, this study has raised another important issue: the role of the teacher in the task-based classroom. TBLT is generally learner centered, meaning focused, and goal oriented. According to Ellis (2009a), one of the concerns voiced by researchers and educators against TBLT is that attention to form in TBLT is limited (Sato, 2010; Swan, 2005). One way to balance communication and attention to linguistic form in TBLT is to add formfocused instruction to the communicative tasks (Ellis, 2016; Ortega, 2012). Students’ systematic use of language mined from the teacher’s model input helped to produce some examples of content generalization. For example, as shown above, four students borrowed reasons from the teacher’s modeled input, but students in the other conditions did not give the same reasons. In addition, it is possible that the input enhancement through underlined target phrases in the teacher’s input led the students to pay attention to the formulaic language. The current study suggests that input enhancement by the teacher might play an important role in the task-based classroom (Samuda, 2001). The role of the teacher in TBLT should be considered more fully when using tasks in order to effectively guide learners toward efficient language processing and L2 development.

Conclusion

This study explored the effects of pretask planning types on learners’ oral performance. The findings indicated that there was a statistically positive influence on complexity from the teacher-led and the pair-work planning conditions. Given that pretask planning usually leads to increases in fluency, these results were inconsistent with the results of most previous studies in terms of fluency. The following limitations need to be acknowledged. The first is the small sample size (N = 29) and consequent lack of statistical power. Studies with

114

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

larger numbers of students need to be conducted in the future. Second, the findings may still not be sufficient to understand how the participants use the templates and input provided them. For future research, the inclusion of a qualitative analysis would be of benefit to researchers to ascertain what the participants are doing during the planning stages. Posttask interviews, retrospective interviews, think-aloud protocols, or open-ended questionnaires may have the potential to facilitate a fuller understanding of pretask planning. In spite of these limitations, the findings of this study provide some implications for task-based classroom teaching. First, pretask planning helps leaners to produce more complex utterances. Of particular note, the teacher-led condition might play an important role in increasing complexity, as previous studies have found (Foster & Skehan, 1999; Kawauchi, 2005; Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008). One reason is that the teacher-led condition can assist learners by modeling content during the input phase. As Wang (2014) suggested, intervention with content conceptualization enables learners to achieve higher syntactic complexity. The second reason is that teacher-led planning can assist learners to activate, extend, and refine their current interlanguage resources and processing capacities (Samuda, 2001). This means that teacher-led pretask planning—such as showing model input—could possibly encourage students’ development toward form–meaning mapping. Hence, teachers retain an important role as “language guide facilitators” (Willis, 1996) in the task-based classroom by providing students some input-enhancements to maximize opportunities for them to notice language forms. Furthermore, as this study has demonstrated, research using actual classroom tasks can increase our understanding of students’ task-based performance, strengthen the connection between research and application, and enhance students’ speaking practices via research-based pedagogy.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and to David Beglar, Paul Leeming, and Timothy Doe for valuable comments and suggestions on the analysis and statistics. Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to the students and administers who kindly allowed me to conduct this research.

Chie Ogawa is an English instructor at Rikkyo University in Japan. Her research interests include speaking assessment, instructed SLA, and taskbased language teaching (TBLT).

Ogawa

References

115

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Batstone, R. (2005). Planning as discourse activity: A sociocognitive view. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 277-296). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.

Boston, J. S. (2010). Pre-task syntactic priming and focused task design. ELT Journal, 64, 165-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp033 Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45, 221-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688214546964

Bui, G. (2014). Task readiness. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63-94). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469. De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143-166). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627 Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126-135). Oxford, UK: MacMillan Heinemann.

116

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303 Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 193-218). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.168

Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 143-166). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu047 Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H.-T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263198001041 Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 11-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492 Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17, 377–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(89)90010-9

Ogawa

117

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199001047

Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77-109). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins. Ortega, L. (2012, August). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: One pragmatist’s view. Plenary delivered at the JASELE Conference, Nagoya, Japan.

Park, S. (2010). The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14, 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346491 Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111-142). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 119-140). London, UK: Longman. Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32, 189-200. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100011943

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047

Skehan, P., Bei, X., Li, Q., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16, 170-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414

118

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 239-273). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins. Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 369-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.232 VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100009177 Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27-62). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105 Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UL: Longman.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1

英語学習動機の変化に影響を及ぼす要因 ―動機高揚経験及び減衰経験の内容分析―

Factors on Changes of English Learning Motivation: A Content Analysis of Motivating and Demotivating Experiences 菊地恵太

Keita Kikuchi 神奈川大学

Kanagawa University 酒井英樹

Hideki Sakai 信州大学

Shinshu University 本研究は、英語学習者である日本人大学生を対象に自由記述式のアンケートを実施し、大学入学前の中学校と高等学校の６年間に、どのような要因で英語学習の動機づけが高まったのか、また減衰したのかを探索することによって、英語学習に関する動機づけを行う方策についての示唆を得ることを目的とする。最初に、先行研究に基づいて動機を高める要因と減衰させる要因をまとめる。次に、これらの要因と動機の変容について探究しようとした先行研究を概観し、研究方法上の問題点を指摘する。先行研究の問題点を克服するために本研究は計画された。

JALT Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, November 2016

119

120

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

In recent research on L2 learning motivation, there have been an increasing number of studies on motivators (e.g., Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008; Sugita & Takeuchi, 2010) and demotivators (e.g., Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009) in the classroom. Although findings from these studies give general guidelines to language teachers, it has been argued that the motivators and demotivators vary in different contexts and that learner motivation fluctuates (Hayashi, 2005; Miura, 2010; Sawyer, 2007; Shoaib & Dörnyei, 2005). This study was aimed at understanding the changes in motivation among Japanese learners of English during their 6 years of high school. Based on a survey of 199 college students taking an English language teaching certificate class in the spring semesters of 2006, 2007, and 2008, the general pattern of changes as well as reasons for change were investigated. In a questionnaire adapted from Sawyer (2007), participants were asked to reflect on their level of motivation at the beginning and end of the school year during their 6 years of high school and rate the level on a 5-point Likert scale (0: completely demotivated, 1: fairly demotivated, 2: a bit motivated, 3: fairly motivated, 4: completely motivated). They were also asked to write why their motivation became higher or lower. The two research questions posed for this study were “When do Japanese learners of English experience motivators and demotivators in their six years of study in high schools?” and “What are motivators and demotivators experienced during those times?”

Through an analysis of the changes in motivation, it was found that the level of participants’ motivation generally went down from the end of the 1st year of junior high school to the beginning of the 2nd year, from the end of the 3rd year of junior high to the 1st year of high school, and from the beginning of the 1st year of senior high school to the end of that school year. The level of motivation generally went up from the end of the 2nd year of senior high school to the beginning of the 3rd year and from the beginning of the 3rd year to the end of that school year. Statistical significance was found between each pair (Bonferroni-adjusted significance level α = .0045). These findings confirm those of previous studies (Hayashi, 2005; Miura, 2010; Sawyer, 2007) which reported the general pattern of the motivational fluctuation of Japanese English learners. Apparently, goals such as success in entrance examinations for senior high schools and universities may be reasonable motivators for many Japanese learners of English. After achieving entrance to junior high school or senior high school, participants may have difficulty adjusting to the class instruction and find it demotivating for a while. Furthermore, it was found that various factors such as experiences of failure, teacher behavior, or the content of classes can be motivators or demotivators. By using reflective surveys, we were able to glimpse the complexities of learners’ motivation. Based on the findings from this study, we discuss the importance of reflecting on our daily teaching practice and call for research considering learners’ contexts in depth.

Kikuchi & Sakai

121

örnyei（2001）、Dörnyei and Ushioda（2011）やHiromori（2005）が指摘するとおり、外国語学習に関する動機づけの研究は多くの研究者の関心を引き付けている。具体的に動機づけを引き起こす要因に関しての研究は少なかったが、近年動機を高める要因や動機を減衰させる要因について研究されてきている。動機を高める要因に関する研究として、HiromoriやSugita and Takeuchi （2010）が挙げられる。これらの研究が依拠したRyan and Deci （2002）の自己決定理論とDörnyei（2001）の motivational strategiesをまとめると、次の8点になる。 1. 2.

教師に関する要因：教員の適切な行動、生徒とよい関係を持つこと（Dörnyei）、動機づけにつながるフィードバックを返すこと（Dörnyei）授業の内容/特質：授業を生徒と関連のあるものにすること（Dörnyei）、自律性（Ryan & Deci）

学習経験：学習経験の質を良くすること（Dörnyei）

目標設定：生徒の目標志向を高めること、達成しやすい細かい目標を設定すること（Dörnyei）

学習方法：現実的な生徒の学習ビリーフをつくる事、自己的にやる気を高めるストラテジーを築かせること（Dörnyei）

教室環境：楽しい、支えられているといった雰囲気の学習環境（Dörnyei）、関係性（Ryan & Deci）

有能性：生徒の自信を高めること（Dörnyei）、有能性（Ryan & Deci）

内発的動機：外国語学習に関連した価値や態度を高めること（Dörnyei）

一方、動機を減衰させる要因に関する研究として、Kikuchi（2009）、Kikuchi and Sakai（2009）、Sakai and Kikuchi（2009）などがある。これらの研究を概観して、Kikuchi（2013）は、動機の低下要因として次の6点にまとめている。 1.

教師に関する要因：教師の態度・性格、教える能力・教え方、英語力

授業の内容/特質：授業の内容やペース、単調・退屈な授業スタイル、難しい文法や語彙学習、暗記を多く求められること、大学英語入試対策に特化すること

失敗経験：テストの点が悪かったことに対する失望、語彙や熟語がうまく覚えられない、教師や周りの人たちに認められないという気持ち

授業環境：クラスメートや友達の態度、英語学習が必修であること、授業活動が活発でない、授業のレベルが適切でない、視聴覚教材が使われないこと

授業教材:自分と合わない教材、興味がわかない教材、配布される参考書やプリントが多すぎること

英語に対する内発的動機の欠如：学校英語は実用的ではない、英語を話せる人にはなりたくないといった気持ち

本節では、動機を変容させる要因をまとめたが、これらの要因と学習時期との関係を詳細に見ていくことが重要である。先行研究（e.g., Berwick & Ross, 1989; Gardner,

122

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic, 2004; Miura, 2010; Shoaib & Dörnyei, 2005; Ushioda, 2001; see also, Dörnyei, 2005, pp. 87-88）によると、英語学習の動機づけの強さや種類はダイナミックに変化すると報告されているからである。次節では、時間的要因を考慮して動機を変容させる要因と動機の強さの関係について調べた研究を概観する。動機の変容とその要因時間的経過による動機の変容と、その要因を調べた研究として、Hayashi（2005）、 Miura（2010）、Sawyer （2007）、Shoaib and Dörnyei（2005）、Ushioda（2001）がある。ここでは、日本人英語学習者を対象にした研究（Hayashi, 2005; Miura, 2010; Sawyer, 2007）を概観する。これらはいずれも大学生に中学高校在籍時を振り返り、回答するように求めたものである。 Hayashi（2005）は日本人大学生481名に中学校や高等学校在籍時（中学1年生から大学3年生までの9時点）の英語学習の動機についてリカート法（5段階）で自己評価させ、どのように英語学習の動機が変容しているのかを分析した。また、欠損値などの理由により20名分を除いた461名のデータに対し、クラスター分析を行い、変容の仕方が異なる4群（high-high, low-low, high-low, low-high）に分類できることを示した。9 時点でずっと動機が高い学習者（high-high）は149名、ずっと動機が低い学習者（lowlow）は57名、中学入学時は高いが低くなっていく学習者（high-low）は140名、中学入学時は低いが高くなっていく学習者（low-high）は115名であった。その上でそれぞれのグループごとの自由記述の回答を分析し、自己決定理論に基づき、グループごとの変化の理由を説明しようと試みている。ただ、最も高い動機の時点と最も低い動機の時点の説明を求めているものの、それぞれピーク時の理由のみを回答者に記入してもらっているため、6年間の時間経過に伴う動機づけの変容の詳細を説明するものとはなっていない点が課題として指摘できるであろう。 Sawyer（2007）は、日本人の大学3年生120名を対象にして質問紙票調査を行った。中学1年生から大学2年生までの8年間（それぞれ4月時と3月時）の英語学習の動機について6件法で自己評価をしてもらった。さらに、それぞれの時期の動機づけについて自由記述を求めた。自由記述の内容分析を試み、動機の高揚に関しては、（a）教師の影響、（b）友人の影響、（c）目標設定に関するコメントが挙げられると指摘し、動機の減衰に関しては、（a）教師の影響、（b）友人の影響、（c）目標の喪失に関するコメントが挙げられると指摘した。また、動機の高揚・減衰のパターンが先行研究に合致し、中学ではアルファベットのUの形ように中1から中３まで変容すること、高校ではアルファベットのJの形ように変容することが示された（Sawyer, 2007, p. 37）一方、Sawyer 自身も認めるとおり、包括的だが“preliminary” の分析にとどまり、各学年時における動機の変容とその理由との関連をみていない（Sawyer, 2007, p. 38）。 Miura（2010）は、主に1年生を中心とする英語専攻ではない日本人大学生196名を対象に、中学1年生から大学1年生までの7年間（7時点）に渡る動機づけの強さとその理由の順位について、質問紙調査を行った。Miuraはそのデータを基に、参加者の学習動機づけが頻繁に変化しており、また高校・大学入試に影響を強く受けていることを明らかにしたMiura（2010）。中学1年生から大学1年生までの7時点での動機変容に関して参加者にSawyer（2007）の研究と同様に動機づけの変化を線グラフを描いてもらう方法で調査を行っている。また、Miura （2010）では、中学・高校生のそれぞれ3

Kikuchi & Sakai

123

年間と大学1年次の3時点について、英語文化や話者に対する興味、英語学習の楽しさ、英語の授業でよい成績をとること、入試に受かること、将来的に英語を使うこと、両親、友達、教師による影響の6つの項目を使い、参加者に順位をつけさせた。これらの項目は内的動機・外的動機および重要な他者からの影響に関しての3つの動機づけ理論に基づいた項目である。つまり、7年間の動機の変容の高揚・減衰の理由に関して、中学3年間・高校3年間、大学1年次の3時点について探究しているが、他の4時点における動機の高揚・減退要因は探究していない。ここまで概観してきたように、3つの研究（Hayashi, 2005; Miura, 2010; Sawyer, 2007）は中・高6年間における動機づけの変容を示しているが、その変容に影響を与えた要因が十分追究されていないことが指摘できる。本研究は、そういった点を踏まえて、次に挙げるリサーチクエスチョンを探究するものとする。（1）中学校から高校までの６年間の英語学習の中で、どの時期に学習者は学習動機の高揚・減退を経験するのか。（2）その学習動機高揚・減退要因にはどのようなものがあるのか。本研究の特徴として2点を挙げる。第1に、各学年2時点設定にしたことである。Hayashi（2005）やMiura（2010）では、学年を1つの時点として質問している。たとえば、高校3年生の初めの時期（進路について考えはじめていると思われる時期）と、高校3年生の終わりの時期（進路がほぼ決まっている時期）において、英語学習の動機の強さに違いがあると推察されるが、この違いをHayashi（2005）やMiura（2010）では考慮できていない。そこで、本研究では、Sawyer（2007）の時期設定に従って、各学年を2時点（4月と3月）に分けて質問紙票を作成した。また、各学年で2時点設定にしたことによって、各学年において、動機が高まったのか、低まったのかという動機の変容を特定できる。第2に、動機高揚や動機減衰の経験を、動機変容と関係づけて分析を行ったことである。それぞれの学年において、動機が高揚した学生は、どのような動機高揚や減衰の経験をしているのか、動機が減衰した学生は、どのような動機高揚や減衰の経験をしているのかを分析した。そのために、動機づけの強さの変容を分析し、それぞれの学年における動機高揚群と動機減衰群に分け、自由記述を分析する。方法

参加者・手順本研究は、2006年から2008年までの3年間、質問紙票調査を実施した。参加者は、国立大学教育学部の「英語科教育法基礎」の受講者合計191名（2006年7月24日実施76名、2007年4月6日実施61名、2008年7月17日実施54名、未記入者を除く）である。なお、本科目は中学校教員免許（外国語）を取得するための科目の１つであるが、英語教育分野の学生だけでなく、免許（外国語）の取得を希望する他の分野の学生も受講している。質問紙票調査にかかった時間は、配布・説明・記入を含めて30 分程度であった。

124

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

質問紙票本研究では参加者にSawyer（2007）と同様に、中学1年生から高校3年生までの6 年間のそれぞれはじめと終わりの12時点について動機の変容に関する質問をたずねた。具体的には、英語の学習動機の強さについて、0から4までのリカート法（0：まったくやる気がない、1：ほとんどやる気がない、2：少ししかやる気がない、3：まあまあやる気がある、4：とてもやる気がある）で回答してもらった。なお、指示文は「次の時期に、あなたの英語学習のやる気はどれくらいでしたか。0～4まで、適する番号に○をつけてください」であった。また、それぞれの時期で、動機が高くなった経験や、動機が低くなった経験について自由記述を求めた。このための指示文は「それぞれの時期において、英語を勉強するやる気が高まったり、減退したりした経験があれば、具体的に教えてください。」とし、12時点におけるやる気が高まった経験、減退した経験に関して計24箇所の記入欄を設けた。１24時点（中1から高3までの6学年×初めと終わりの2時点）における減衰と高揚の経験について記述を求め、24時点のすべてについて記入をしていない回答者は、191人中16名であった。その他の175名に関しては、24時点のうち平均すると6.8の時点に関してコメントを記入しており、1人当たりの平均文字数は8.1字であった。

分析方法本研究では、ある時点xからある時点yにおける動機づけの強さの変化を求め、動機が高揚した学習者（動機高揚群）と動機が減衰した学習者（動機減衰群）を特定した。たとえば、中学3年の初め（時点x）に2と記入した参加者が、中学3年の終わり（時点y）に3と記入した場合、この参加者は、+1となり、動機高揚群として分類された。逆に、中学3年初め（時点x）に3と記入した参加者が中学3年の終わり（時点y）に2と記入した場合、その参加者は、動機減衰群として分類された。ある時点yにおける「英語を勉強するやる気が高まったり、減衰した経験」に関する自由記述を研究者2名での共同作業で分析し、2つの学習者群（動機高揚群と動機減衰群）に特徴が見られるか考察した。分析の手順は、以下の通りである。書かれた記述を読み、キーワードを設定した。次に、類似したキーワードごとに記述を整理し、コードを作成した。その後で、先行研究の中で動機づけを高める要因としてまとめた8要因（教師・環境・授業・学習経験・学習方法・目的・自信・内発的動機）と、動機づけを減衰させる要因として取り上げられていた6要因（教師・授業・教材・失敗経験・授業環境・内発的動機の欠如）を考慮して、カテゴリーを作成した。例えば、「教師の発音が自分よりも下手だったため。周りの人がみんなカタカナ英語だったのに、教師が１回も注意しなかったため。」と「先生の発音が悪かった」という2つの記述の場合、キーワードとしては「教師の発音」「発音指導」「先生の発音」とつけられた。その後で、両記述とも、「教師_発音」というコードが与えられた。そして、カテゴリーとしては「教師」に分類された。本研究者2名が相談をしながら分析作業を行った。その結果、作成したカテゴリー、コード、記述例は、資料Aと資料Bを参照されたい。

Kikuchi & Sakai

125

結果

全体の傾向表1は、参加者の英語学習のやる気に関しての中1の初めから高3の終わりまでの 12時点における英語の学習動機の強さの基礎統計量（平均、標準偏差、中央値、四分位範囲、歪度、歪度の標準誤差、尖度、尖度の標準誤差）を示している。その推移を視覚的にわかりやすく示したのが、図１である（平均値の推移）。なお、図１において、実線は各学年の初めと終わりの間を示しており、波線は各年度の終わりと初めのわずかな期間の変化を表している。さて、この表で注目するべきは、中・高6年間の中で参加者の英語学習に対する動機の平均値は、中1と高1の期間で下がっており、中3と高3の期間で上昇していることである。特に高1の初めと終わりの間の平均値の下降と、高3の初めと終わりの間の平均値の上昇は顕著である。この推移は、統計的にも支持された。順位尺度であるリカート法であるため、2時点間の動機の強さの差を検定するために、ウィルコクソンの符号付順位和検定を行った。有意水準は、ボンフェローニの調整により、α = .0045に設定した。また、ウィルコクソンの符号付順位和検定の効果量としてrを計算した（Field, 2005, p. 558）。 Field（2005）の判断基準によれば、r = .10は小さな効果量、r = .30は中程度の効果量、r = .50は大きな効果量である。学年の間に統計的に有意に変化したのは、高1の初めから終わりにかけての減衰と、高3の初めから終わりにかけての高揚であった。また、学年の変わり目においては、中3の終わりから高1の初め（減衰）と、高2の終わりから高3の初め（高揚）という2時点が統計的に有意であった。効果量については、統計的に有意であった時点の効果量は.30を超えず、小さな効果量であった。特に、高1の初めから終わりにかけての減衰の効果量が.25と最も大きかったが、.30を超えなかった。表1. 各時期の英語の学習動機の強さの平均値と標準偏差（N = 191）中1

中2

中3

高1

高2

高3

初

末

初

末

初

末

初

末

初

末

初

末

3.31

3.22

3.09

3.10

3.20

3.29

3.01

2.70

2.72

2.71

2.96

3.14

0.93

0.83

0.95

0.97

0.96

0.91

0.96

0.92

0.96

1.07

1.10

1.00

Mdn

IQR

Skewness

-1.44 -0.82 -0.90 -1.01 -1.25 -1.38 -0.88 -0.63 -0.52 -0.45 -0.88 -1.20

SES

0.18

Kurtosis

1.79 -0.03

0.29

0.53

1.15

1.57

0.40

0.30 -0.03 -0.53 -0.02

1.08

SEK

0.35

0.18 0.35

0.35

注. M = 平均値; SD = 標準偏差; Mdn = 中央値; IQR = 四分位範囲; Skewness = 歪度; SES = 歪度の標準誤差; Kurtosis = 尖度; SEK = 尖度の標準誤差.

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

126

図1. 各時期の英語の学習動機の強さの変化表2. 英語の学習動機の強さの2時点の差の検定結果組み合わせ

中1初 vs 中1末

-1.793

.072

.092

中1末 vs 中2初

-2.864

.005

.147

中2初 vs 中2末

0.061

.925

.003

中2末 vs 中3初

2.121

.037

.109

中3初 vs 中3末

2.102

.043

.108

中3末 vs 高1初

-3.774

.000*

.193

高1初 vs 高1末

-4.961

.000*

.254

高1末 vs 高2初

0.006

1.000

.000

高2初 vs 高2末

-0.294

.785

.015

高2末 vs 高3初

3.857

.000*

.197

高3初 vs 高3末

3.440

.000*

.176

注. * p < .0045

動機高揚群と動機減衰群ごとの分析表3に示すのが、各学年における英語の学習動機が変化したと報告した参加者の数である。例えば、中1の初めと終わりの時点で動機の強さが変化しなかったのは、191名中123名であった。動機が強まったのは、20名（+1）、2名（+2）、3名（+3）の合

Kikuchi & Sakai

127

計25名であった。一方、動機が弱まったのは、37名（-1）、5名（-2）、1名（-3）の合計43 名であった。また、表3は、合計人数の下に動機高揚群・減退群の人数を示している。「分析方法」の節で説明したように、それぞれの学年において動機が強くなったか、弱くなったかによって、参加者を動機高揚群と減衰群に分けた。2中3と高3では、動機が高まったという学習者が、動機が低くなったという学習者よりも多かった（動機高揚群28名対動機減衰群14名、動機高揚群39名対動機減衰群16名）。また、中1と高1では動機が減衰したという学習者が高揚したという学習者よりも多かった（動機高揚群25名対動機減衰群43名、動機高揚群12名対動機減衰群60名）。表3. 各学年における英語の学習動機の強さの変容（人数）中1

中2

中3

高1

高2

高3

-3

-2

-1

123

149

119

137

136

191

動機高揚群

動機減衰群

変化の度合い

合計

中1での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表4と表5は、中1の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。2時点のどちらの理由に関しても無記入の参加者も多いが、記入を行なった学習者の中で顕著なのは、理解ができたという経験や、英検の好成績や成績の向上といった自信を動機が高まった理由として挙げている学習者（9名）が多いことであろう。その一方、動機が減退した理由としては、表4と対照的に、理解ができなかったという経験や成績が下がったという失敗経験を挙げている学習者の多いことが顕著である（8名）。その他、教師（7名）や授業に関しての理由（6名）を挙げる学習者が多かった。

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

128

表4. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（中学1年末）

カテゴリー

コード

教師

ALT

高揚群

減衰群

総計

教師_ほめ言葉

教師_好き

授業_楽しかった

授業方法_ゲーム

目的

英検の受験

自信

英検_満点

授業

試験_高得点

達成感

達成感_ALTの理解

達成感_表現や語彙の増加

理解_文法

理解_文法英検_合格

理解_文法成績の向上

失敗経験

一念発起

内発的動機&授業

興味がわいた授業_楽しかった

無記入総計

3 1

2 1

表5. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（中学1年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

高揚群

減衰群

総計

教師_悪い雰囲気

教師_嫌い

教師_読めない字

教師_発音

教師_話の仕方

Kikuchi & Sakai カテゴリー

コード

授業

失敗経験

減衰群

総計

暗記量の多さ

困難_内容

授業内容_教科書重視

授業内容_文法訳読

不適切なペース

困難

困難_暗記

成績の低下

達成感の欠如

慣れてきたから

興味の喪失

初めてだから

困難_文法

内発的動機の欠如

だらける

高揚群

129

無記入

英語嫌い 23

総計

中2での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表6と表7は、中2の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。表6で示したように、高揚群において、失敗経験に基づき「もう一度やってみよう、勉強してみよう」といった決心（2名）や試験で高得点や満点をとった、理解できた、といった自信につながった経験（3名）が動機が高揚した理由として挙げられている。減衰群では、高揚した理由を明記した者はいなかった。その一方、動機が減衰した理由に関しては、表7で示したように、教師（3名）や内発的動機の欠如に関する要素を記入した学習者が多かった（4名）。高揚群で減衰した理由を明記した者はいなかった。

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

130

表6. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（中学2年末）

カテゴリー

コード

教師

教師_変わった

授業

授業方法_ゲーム

経験

海外経験

目的

テスト得点の向上

英検の受験

試験_高得点

試験_満点

理解

失敗経験

一念発起

自信&内発的動機

英検_合格洋楽への興味

経験&教師

海外経験教師_指導

自信

無記入総計

高揚群

減衰群

総計

表7. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（中学2年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

減衰群

総計

教師_嫌い

教師_発音

困難

授業方法_受動的

失敗経験

成績の低下

教材

教材_長文の多さ

内発的動機の欠如

だらける

英語嫌い

授業

その他

高揚群

面倒になったから

目的の喪失

進路を迷ったから

無記入

総計

Kikuchi & Sakai

131

中3での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表8と表9は、中3の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。顕著なのは、受験や進学といった目的意識がはっきりしたこと（「目的」と「目的&内発的動機」を合わせて12 名）が多く、また成績の向上や英検の合格など自信を動機が高まった理由としてあげている学習者（3名）も見られた。その一方で、動機が減退した理由としては、逆に受験勉強にかかわるものが挙げられていた（「授業_受験」3名、「内発的動機の欠如_受験_終わったから」 2名）。また、成績の低下や達成感の欠如という失敗経験を挙げている者もいた（3名）。また、興味深いのは、中１や中2で動機が高まった理由・減退した理由として挙げられていた教師に関する理由が減っていることである（高揚群・減衰群各1名）。表8. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（中学3年末）カテゴリー

コード

授業

適切な内容

経験

海外経験

目的

受験

自信

英検_合格

成績の向上

目的&内発的動機

受験英語の興味

高揚群

減衰群

総計

無記入

総計

表9. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（中学3年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

教師_嫌い

授業

減衰群

総計 1

教師_性格

受験

塾の課題失敗経験

高揚群

成績の低下

達成感の欠如

教材

教材_長文の多さ

内発的動機の欠如

受験_終わったから

無記入

総計

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

132

高1での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表10と表11は、高1の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。この学年で目立つのは、成績の低下などの失敗経験に関する理由（17名）、教材に関する理由（3名）、課題の多さや不適切なペースなどの授業に関する理由（15名）を、減退した理由として挙げられていることであろう。中学校から高等学校に進学したことによる環境の変化に起因するものと考えられる。表10. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（高校1年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

教師_好き

高揚群

減衰群 1

総計 1

教師_指導

授業

あてられるから

経験

海外経験

目的

海外留学への興味

学習方法

適切なペースがわかったから

環境

環境_LLの使用

自信

理解_授業内容

失敗経験

一念発起

自信&教師

教師_ほめ言葉試験_学年1 位

無記入総計

1 1 1

表11. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（高校1年末）カテゴリー

コード

授業

暗記量の多さ

高揚群

減衰群

総計

課題の多さ

困難_内容

困難_内容暗記量の多さ

受験

授業内容_中学と同じ

授業内容_文法訳読

不適切なペース

Kikuchi & Sakai カテゴリー

コード

失敗経験

その他_勉強方法がわからない

高揚群

減衰群

総計

暗記量の多さ

課題の多さ困難_暗記

困難

困難_暗記成績の低下

困難_英文読解

困難_単語及び文構造

困難_文法成績の低下

失敗への不安_授業中の指名

成績の低下

成績の低下困難_暗記

達成感の欠如授業環境

他者との比較

不適切なレベル教材

133

課題_副読本が面倒

教材の多さ内発的動機の欠如

部活動への集中

教師&授業

教師_性格不適切なペース

授業内容_おもしろくない&教師_嫌い授業&失敗経験

困難_内容成績の低下

授業&授業環境

受験授業内容_文法訳読授業環境_他者との比較

失敗経験&授業環課題の多さ境

無記入

総計

高2での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表12と表13は、高2の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。高揚群において、動機が高揚した理由として海外経験に関する理由（3名）、成績の向上という自信に関する理由（4名）、受験という目的に関する理由（2名）が挙げら

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

134

れている。一方、減退群においては、部活動への集中（3名）など内発的動機の欠如に関する理由や、成績の伸び悩みや成績の低下など失敗経験に関する理由（2名）、受験対応の授業になっていることや文法訳読中心の授業内容など授業に関する理由（それぞれ2名）が挙げられている。高3での受験勉強を控えた高2の時期に海外研修に行く機会が増えるものと思われる。また、大学受験を控えて授業が受験シフトになってくることが、英語学習の目的が明確になるというように動機高揚の要因となる一方で、学習者によっては動機を減衰させる要因となっていることが示されている。表12. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（高校2年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

教師_好き

高揚群 1

減衰群

総計 1

教師_変わった

経験

海外経験

目的

受験

学習方法

受験方略がわかったから

環境

クラスメートの変更

自信

受験勉強

成績の向上

内発的動機

文法の楽しさ

失敗経験

一念発起

自信&経験

海外経験大会の入賞

自信&教師

テストの上位教師_良い

教師&授業

教師_変わった英語で外国語学ぶ

無記入総計

表13. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（高校2年末）カテゴリー

コード

教師

教師_性格

教師_発音

授業

暗記科目学習量困難_リスニング

高揚群

減衰群

総計

1 1

Kikuchi & Sakai カテゴリー

コード

減衰群

総計

受験

授業内容_文法訳読

不適切なペース失敗経験

高揚群

135

困難_文法

成績の伸び悩み成績の低下

教材

長文

内発的動機の欠如

きわめたから

点数による評価

部活動への集中

無記入

総計

高3での動機が高まった理由・減退した理由.表14と表15は、高3の4月から3月までの学習の中で参加者（動機高揚群・動機減衰群）が記した動機が高まった理由（高揚理由）と動機が減退した理由（減衰理由）をまとめたものである。動機が高揚した理由（表14参照）に関しては、受験を挙げている学習者が半分ほどおり（16名）、成績や、英検などの試験に関連した要素が高揚理由として挙げられていることが目立つ。一方、減衰群では、受験とともにその受験勉強に付随した学習の中での様々な要素（例、「受験を目的としたから」「成績の低下困難_暗記」など）が減衰理由として挙げられていることが興味深い（表15参照）。表14. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が高揚した理由とその頻度（高校3年末）カテゴリー

コード

目的

英検の受験

英語教師への夢

受験環境

高揚群

強制

減衰群

総計

試験_高得点

成績の向上

達成感

理解

136

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

カテゴリー

コード

内発的動機

英語学習に対する期待

失敗経験

一念発起

その他

塾をやめたから

単語

問題が解ける受験

自信&目的

高揚群

減衰群

総計

無記入

総計

表15. 動機減衰群と動機高揚群の動機が減衰した理由とその頻度（高校3年末）カテゴリー授業

コード

高揚群

減衰群

総計

困難繰り返し

受験

授業内容_文法訳読

失敗経験

成績の低下

成績の低下困難_暗記

授業環境

クラスメート_トラブル

強制

受験を目的としたから

飽き

受験教師_性格

内発的動機の欠如教師&授業

1 1

2 1

無記入

総計

時間経過による高揚要因.ここまで各学年における動機高揚群と動機減衰群の、動機が高揚した理由と動機が減衰した理由を見てきた。次に、学年間における理由が異なるのかを比較する。まず、動機が高揚した理由を見てみる（表16参照）。各学年ごとの分析結果から明らかなように中3、高3においては受験を目の前にしている時期ということもあり、目的意識が高揚要因として多くの学習者によって挙げられていることが顕著である。その一方、中1・2、高2といった時期では自信の向上を中心に様々な理由が挙げられている。また、高1の時期に関しては挙げられている高揚要因の総数自体が他の時期よりも少ない。

Kikuchi & Sakai 表16. 各学年における高揚要因の分布（動機高揚群）高揚要因教師

中1 2 (8.0%) 2 (8.0%)

中2 中3 2 (10.0%) 1 1 (5.0%) (3.6%) 1 1 (5.0%) (3.6%) 2 11 (10.0%) (39.3%)

高1 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%)

高2 2 (7.7%)

高3

137

総計 7 (4.7%) 授業 5 (3.3%) 学習経験 3 5 (11.5%) (3.3%) 目的 1 1 2 19 36 (4.0%) (8.3%) (7.7%) (48.7%) (24.0%) 学習方法 1 1 2 (8.3%) (3.8%) (1.3%) 環境 1 1 (3.8%) (0.7%) 自信 9 3 3 1 5 4 25 (36.0%) (15.0%) (10.7%) (8.3%) (19.2%) (10.3%) (16.7%) 内発的動機 1 1 2 (3.8%) (2.6%) (1.3%) 失敗経験 1 2 2 2 1 8 (4.0%) (10.0%) (16.7%) (7.7%) (2.6%) (5.3%) その他 2 2 (5.1%) (1.3%) 自信&教師 1 1 2 (8.3%) (3.8%) (1.3%) 経験&教師 1 1 (5.0%) (0.7%) 自信&経験 1 1 (3.8%) (0.7%) 自信&内発的 1 1 動機 (5.0%) (0.7%) 自信&目的 1 1 (2.6%) (0.7%) 内発的動機& 1 1 授業 (4.0%) (0.7%) 目的&内発的 1 1 動機 (3.6%) (0.7%) 無記入 9 7 11 4 7 11 49 (36.0%) (35.0%) (39.3%) (33.3%) (26.9%) (28.2%) (32.7%) 総計 25 20 28 12 26 39 150

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

138

時間経過による減衰要因.次に、動機が減衰した理由について見てみる（表17参照）。中・高6年間の中で高校1年の時期に最も多く、また多岐に及ぶ理由（9カテゴリー）が挙げられていることが顕著である。どの時期においても授業、失敗経験、教師に関する理由が動機減衰の理由として捉えられていることも注目すべきであろう。また、特に中2、高2といった時期において内発的動機の欠如に関する理由を挙げる学習者が多い（4名 18.2%と5名17.9%）。これは、Sawyer （2007）がUの形（1年生と3年生が高く、2年生が低いということ）やJの形（1年生と2年生が低く、3年生が高くなるということ）と形容した動機の変容に合致する。表17. 各学年における減衰要因の分布（動機減衰群）減衰要因

中1

中2

中3

教師

7 (16.3%)

3 (13.6%)

1 (7.1%)

授業

6 (14.0%)

2 (9.1%)

3 (21.4%)

15 (25.0%)

6 (21.4%)

3 (18.8%)

35 (19.1%)

失敗経験

8 (18.6%)

1 (4.5%)

3 (21.4%)

17 (28.3%)

4 (14.3%)

1 (6.3%)

34 (18.6%)

2 (12.5%)

6 (3.3%)

授業環境

高1

高2

高3

1 (3.6%)

4 (6.7%)

教材

1 (4.5%)

2 (14.3%)

3 (5.0%)

1 (3.6%)

内発的動機 6 の欠如 (14.0%)

4 (18.2%)

2 (14.3%)

2 (3.3%)

5 (17.9%)

その他

1 (4.5%)

総計 12 （6.6%)

7 (3.8%) 2 (12.5%)

21 (11.5%) 1 (0.5%)

教師&授業

2 (3.3%)

失敗経験 &授業環境

1 (1.7%)

1 (0.5%)

授業&失敗経験

1 (1.7%)

1 (0.5%)

授業&授業環境

1 (1.7%)

1 (0.5%)

無記入総計

1 (6.3%)

3 (1.6%)

16 (37.2%)

10 (45.5%)

3 (21.4%)

14 (23.3%)

11 (39.3%)

7 (43.8%)

61 (33.3%)

183

Kikuchi & Sakai 考察

139

本節では、2つのリサーチクエスチョンについて考察する。第1のリサーチクエスチョン（中・高6年の英語学習の中で、どの時期に学習者は学習動機の高揚・減退を経験するのか）については、全体の傾向の分析の中で、中3や高3といった受験期が学習動機高揚の時期であることが示された。その一方で、中3から高1の学年の変わり目や高1の初めから終わりにかけてといった時期が、英語の学習動機の減退時期であると言える。これらの変化は統計的に有意であったが、小さな効果量しか示さなかった。今回の調査は、191名と標本サイズが大きかったため、統計的に有意な差が得られた可能性がある。今後、別の学習者でも同じような結果が得られるのかを検証する必要がある。第2のリサーチクエスチョン（その学習動機高揚・減退要因にはどのようなものがあるか）については、中1・高1の時期では教師や授業内容、成績の向上・低下をに関して動機を高める要因・減退させる要因として認識している者が多いが、中3の時期は受験や目的意識に関する言及が多く、また中1・中3の時期では達成感といった心理的要素も多く言及されていた。また高1の時期では、不適切なペース・レベル、教材・課題の多さが動機を減退させる要因として多く言及されていた。先行研究に基づいてまとめた8つの高揚要因と6つの減衰要因と、本研究での高揚要因をまとめた表16と減退要因をまとめた表17を比べてみると、改めて目標設定・有能性を高めることが動機高揚要因として重要であることがわかる。動機減退要因としては、特に授業に関する理由や失敗経験に関する理由、そして英語に対する内発的動機の欠如に関する理由は、ほぼどの学年でも挙げられており、日々の授業を通して学習者に学習の楽しさを伝えることの重要さが示唆される。一方で、学年ごとに異なる要因が動機を高めたり、減退させたりすることも指摘できる。例として教師や授業に関しての要素を考えてみよう。中1や高1ではこれらの要素は動機減退の要因として認識されていたようだ。しかし、中3の時期での言及はそれほど多くなかった。Dörnyei （2001）によって取り上げられ、Cheng and Dörnyei（2007）やGuilloteaux and Dörnyei （2008）の研究で教室内での学習動機を高めるストラテジーが検証されてきているが、このようなストラテジーに関しても使用する時期を見極める必要性が高いことが示唆される。多くの生徒にとって中1や高1で学校環境が大きく変わる。環境の変化に順応しながらやる気を高めるように配慮を要する時期といえよう。そういった時期に学習開始時の動機づけを喚起したり、授業の方法を考慮することによって動機づけの維持と保護を図ったりするべきである。 Kikuchi and Browne （2009）で指摘されているように高校での授業活動は、コミュニケーション活動が少なく、文法訳読が多くなるといわれているが、本研究での分析の中でコミュニケーション活動の少なさや文法訳読に関する記述よりも授業内容が難しい、様々な事柄を覚えられない、課題が多いといった学習内容に関しての記述が多かったことも興味深い。本研究では、同じ理由が動機づけを高めたり、逆に低めたりするということがわかった。例えば、失敗経験が動機高揚理由とも減退理由ともなりうるということが示された。Dörnyei（2001）の指摘するように学習内容の質を高め、失敗経験がうまくやる気が高まることにつながるように教員が配慮することの重要性が示唆されよう。

140

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

おわりに本研究では、ある国立大学教育学部に在籍する英語学習者、計191名に回顧的調査を行うことによって中・高6年間にどのような経験で動機づけが高揚・減退するのかを探索した。本研究の限界点としては、第1に、質問紙票による回顧的方法を採用したことが挙げられる。記憶の喪失の影響を受けず、また、より信頼できるデータ収集方法を使った研究が望まれる。第2に、「英語科教育法基礎」を受講している大学生を研究対象にしている点が挙げられる。中学校教員免許（外国語）の取得を希望する学生が対象であり、比較的英語に対する動機づけが高い学習者であったと考えられる。本研究の結果を他の英語学習者に一般化する際には注意を要する。Kikuchi （2015）は、動機減退要因に対する敏感さには個人差があることを示唆しており、本研究に参加した学習者は比較的英語学習に対して動機が高く、また動機減退要因に対して敏感に反応する可能性が考えられよう。さらに、Sakai and Kikuchi （2009）は、モチベーションの高い学習者と低い学習者では動機減退要因の認識が異なることが指摘している。特に、授業の内容・特質、英語に対する内発的動機づけの欠如、失敗経験に関する要因で、差が見られたことを報告している。また、今後は、幅広い学習者を対象とし、動機を変容させる要因と動機の強さについて縦断的に調査をしていく必要があろう。注 1.

本研究では経験を想起するように求める指示を与えた。経験から言語報告まで時間があるため、記憶の喪失は免れない。記入がないからといって経験がないとは限らないことに留意する必要がある。この点に関する査読者の指摘に感謝する。

本研究の分析結果において、動機高揚群が減衰した理由を述べたり、逆に動機減衰群が高揚した理由を述べたりしていることが示され、群分けと自由記述が矛盾しているようにみえるという査読者からの指摘があった。例えば、資料Ａの「ALT」に関する記述は、減衰群に分類された学習者、一方、資料Ｂの「だらける」に関する記述は、高揚群に分類された学習者によって書かれたものである。この現象は、ここで示している群分けによるものと考えられる。今回の質問紙では、各学年の初めと終わりのやる気の強さに関して回答を求め、高揚群と減衰群の分類は、後に研究者によって行われた。実際には、各学年の初めから終わりの間にやる気が上がったり下がったりすることは十分あり、その変動に対応して、自由記述が書かれている場合もあると考えられる。群分けと自由記述の相違は、矛盾ではなく、むしろ複雑な動機変容の実態を表していると筆者らは考えている。また、減衰した理由は減衰群が多く、高揚した理由は高揚群が多いという結果は、本研究の群分けによる分析が妥当であることを示しているといえよう。

菊地恵太は神奈川大学外国語学部准教授である。主な研究領域は第2言語習得における個人差、動機づけ、およびカリキュラム分析・評価である。酒井英樹は信州大学学術研究院教育学系教授である。主な研究領域は、第2言語習得におけるフィードバックやスピーキング・プロセスである。

Kikuchi & Sakai 引用文献

141

Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English still alive after exam hell? JALT Journal, 11, 193-210. Cheng, J. F., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 153-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/illt048.0

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning, 54, 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00247.x Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroomoriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x

Hayashi, H. (2005). Identifying different motivational transitions of Japanese ESL learners using cluster analysis: Self-determination perspectives. JACET Bulletin, 41, 1-17.

Hiromori, T. (2005). Three factors that motivate L2 learners: From the perspectives of general tendency and individual differences. JACET Bulletin, 41, 37-50. Kikuchi, K. (2009). Listening to our learners’ voices: What demotivates Japanese high school students? Language Teaching Research, 13, 103-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341520

Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in Japanese EFL context. In M. Apple, D. Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 206-224). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kikuchi, K. (2015). Demotivation in second language acquisition: Insights from Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kikuchi, K., & Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan: Ideals vs. reality. RELC Journal, 40, 172-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688209105865

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

142

Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey study. JALT Journal, 31, 183-204. Miura, T. (2010). A retrospective survey of L2 learning motivational changes. JALT Journal, 32, 29-53.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: University of Rochester Press. Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System, 37, 57-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005 Sawyer, M. (2007). Motivation to learn a foreign language: Where does it come from, where does it go? Gengo-to-Bunka, 10, 33-42.

Shoaib, A., & Dörnyei. Z. (2005). Affect in life-long learning: Exploring L2 motivation as a dynamic process. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 22-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do to motivate their students? A classroom research on motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501220802450470 Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 93-125). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. 資料A

動機づけを高めた理由に関するカテゴリー、コード、記述例 No. 1

カテゴリー教師

コード ALT 教師_ほめ言葉教師_好き教師_指導教師_変わった

記述例（学年）外人さんが教室に来てくれるのとか楽しかった。新鮮で。(J1) 先生に「英語の訳し方が上手」とほめられた。(J1) 先生もスキだった。(S1) 文法の授業で、すごく細かいことまで丁寧に書いてくれる先生がいた。(S1) 先生が変わって、良い先生になった。(J2)

Kikuchi & Sakai No. 2

カテゴリー授業

コードあてられるから授業_楽しかった授業方法_ゲーム適切な内容

経験

海外経験

目的

テスト得点の向上英検の受験英語教師への夢海外留学への興味受験

学習方法

環境

自信

143

記述例（学年）授業で教科書の英文の訳を当てられるので自分で英語を勉強するようになった。(S1) 楽しかった。(J1)

授業中にゲームを取り入れた学習があった。(J1) 能力別クラスになって、１クラスの人数も減り、授業内容も自分に合ったものになった。(J3) 英国に一週間ホームステイをした。楽しくて英語ってすごいなと思った。(S2) テストで１００点を取りたくて、頑張ろうと思ったから。(J2) 英語検定を受検した。(J1) 英語教師になりたいと思った。(S3)

海外留学(英語圏)に興味をもちはじめる。(S1) 大学受験に向けて勉強しなければならないと感じたから。(S3) 受験方略がわテストでの点の取り方をマスターしてきかったからた。(S2) 適切なペースがペースがわかってきたから。(S1) わかったからクラスメートの習熟度クラス編成になってうるさい人が下の変更クラスに行ったから。(S2) 環境_LLの使用英語科に入り、中学と違う授業〔LL教室など〕が始まったから。(S1) 強制英語ができることが強制されるようになった。（周囲、学校から）(S3) 英検_合格英検で合格して、自信になったとき。(J3) 英検_満点英検５級が満点だったので、少々調子に乗った。(J1) 試験_高得点英語が得意になり、高得点がいつもとれるようになったから。(J2) 試験_満点定期試験で初めて満点をとった。(J2) 受験勉強ちゃんとした塾で勉強し始めたら点数が伸び始めた。(S2) 成績の向上テストの点数が上がったりするとやる気も上がる。(S2)

144

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

No.

カテゴリー

内発的動機

コード達成感達成感_ALTの理解達成感_表現や語彙の増加理解理解_授業内容理解_文法英語学習に対する期待文法の楽しさ

失敗経験

一念発起

その他

塾をやめたから

記述例（学年）できるようになってきて楽しかった。(J1) 英検の勉強をして外国人講師の自己紹介が分かったから。(J1) 英語の表現や語彙がだんだん増えていき楽しかったから。(J1) 勉強し始めて分かるようになった。(J2) 授業が理解できるようになった。(S1) 文法がわかるようになってきたから。(J1) 高校以上の英語学習に対する期待。(S3) 自分で英文法を徹底的に勉強したら英文法のもつ「論理」と「関連性」に気づき丸暗記では分からない楽しさに気づく。(S2) 自分の苦手な教科だったので、逆に勉強して得意科目にしようと思ったから。(S1) 塾をやめたから。(S3)

注. カテゴリーの順番は、「動機を高める要因と衰退させる要因」で挙げた要因の順番に従っている。（）は学校種（J:中学校、S:高等学校）と学年を示している。

資料B

動機づけを減衰させた理由に関するカテゴリー、コード、記述例 No. 1

カテゴリー教師

コード教師_悪い雰囲気

記述例（学年）先生が女の先生で、クラスになめられだし、授業の雰囲気が悪かった。(J1)

教師_嫌い教師_性格

先生が嫌だったから。(J1) 先生キレる。(J3)

教師_性格

予習をやってない人はチェックし、単位をあげない、と先生が威圧的だった。予習はしたが、やる人、やらない人の差が大きく、自分もやる気がなくなった。(S2) 当初の英語の先生が学校をクビになって代わりの先生がすごく年老いた人で黒板の字が読めない字だった。(J1) 教師の発音が自分よりも下手だったため。周りの人がみんなカタカナ英語だったのに、教師が１回も注意しなかったため。(J1)

教師_読めない字教師_発音

教師_話の仕方

英語の先生が早口すぎて何を言っているのか分からなかった。（日本語も英語も）(J1)

Kikuchi & Sakai No. 2

カテゴリー授業

コード暗記科目

記述例（学年）今まで成績もよく楽しかったが文法を覚えるのが嫌になる。中学のころより増えて、「英語を楽しむ」から暗記教科になっていった気がしてやる気が減る。(S2) 暗記量の多さ高校の英語は暗記量が多く、とまどったため。(S1) 課題の多さとにかく課題、課題で嫌になってしまった (S1) 学習量英語の勉強ばっかりだったこと。授業で多くなった。(S2) 困難ちょっと難しくなった。(J2) 困難繰り返し聞く、書くの連続で大変だった。いつも同じ繰り返し。(S3) 困難_リスニリスニングが更に難しくなった。(S2) ング困難_内容内容が難しくなるにつれて少しずつやる気がそれていく・・・。(J1) 受験授業内容_教科書重視授業内容_中学と同じ授業内容_文法訳読授業方法_受動的塾の課題不適切なペース

失敗経験

145

その他_勉強方法がわからない

暗記量の多さ困難

受験のためのテスト対策をすることが多かったから。(J3) 教科書ばかりでつまらなかった。(J1) やっていることが中学と一緒。単語がふえ、長文になっただけ。(S1) 文法・訳中心の授業。(S3) 先生のあとについて読む、ただ英語訳をきくだけなどで自主的な学習がなかった。(J2) 塾で課題をやらされたとき。(J3) 授業のペースが速すぎてついていけなくなった。(S1) 予習・復習の仕方が分からなくなった。授業の予習をせず、行ってからあたるところだけをやるようになり、(皆でやっていたため) それで間に合うならいいやと思ってしまった。(S1) 高校の英語は暗記量が多く、とまどったため。(S1) 分からなくなり始める。(J1)

146

No.

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016 カテゴリー

コード困難_暗記

記述例（学年）単語の意味や熟語の意味が増えてきて覚えるのが大変になってきたとき。(J1)

困難_英文読解

教科書の長文等の明確な訳が与えられず、いまいち英文を読めなくなったから。(S1)

困難_単語及び文構造

英語科入学。LL教室などでのAETの授業が始まる。単語がむずかしくなる。文の構造がつかみづらくなる。(S1) 文法につまずき、苦手意識をもった。(J1) 文法や教科書の内容を順番に聞かれて、自分が答えられなかったらと思うと怖かったこと。(S1) 成績が伸びなくてイヤになった。(S2)

困難_文法失敗への不安_授業中の指名成績の伸び悩み成績の低下

授業環境

達成感の欠如クラスメート_トラブル強制他者との比較不適切なレベル

教材

課題_副読本が面倒教材_長文の多さ教材の多さ長文

内発的動機の欠如

リスニングが難しく、それに、苦手で全然点を取ることができなくて投げやりになっていた。(S1) あまり手ごたえを感じられなかった。(J3) クラスでトラブルがあった。(S3) 英語ができることが強制されるようになった。（周囲、学校から）(S3) 上の学年との比較。(S1) 私は、国際コースで、普通コースより英語のレベルが高くついていけなくなったから。(S1) 副読本が面倒になって・・・。(S1) 長文が一気に増えた！！(J2) 学校で無駄に教材が多いこと。わけが分からなくなった。(S1)

きわめたから

文章がとにかく長くなってきて、自分の知らない単語もどんどんでてきた。(S2) ある程度きわめてしまったから。(S2)

だらける

全体的にダレていた。(J1)

英語嫌い

英語が嫌い。(J2)

Kikuchi & Sakai No.

カテゴリー

コード慣れてきたから興味の喪失受験_終わったから受験を目的としたから初めてだから

その他

147

記述例（学年）それなりに慣れてきて簡単だし、やる気が下がった。(J1) 最初ほど、興味がなくなってきたか、授業に新鮮さがあまり感じられなかったため。(J1) 受験が終わって一安心しました。(J3) 受験のための勉強しかしなくなり、英語を機械的に覚えることがつまらなかった。(S3) 英語を習ったのはまったく初めてだったので、苦手だと感じた。(J1)

点数による評価単語テストの点数や模試の点数で全て評価されているので、英語にたいして意欲や楽しさが感じられなかった。(S2) 部活動への勉強よりも部活のために学校に行き始め集中た。(S2) 飽き英語のみを勉強した時期に少し飽きたこともあった。(S3) 面倒になったあまり発言しなくなった。めんどうくさくなっからた。(J2) 目的の喪失「何を学んでいるのか」がわからない。(文法・構造などただ読んでいるだけ) (J2) 進路を迷った受験をするにあたって、普通科か英語科を受からけるかで悩んだので。(J2)

148

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;¢ November 2016

Research Forum Reexamination of Word Length Effect: Immediate Serial Recall of Foreign Words Junichiro Takeno Chugokugakuen University Ken Tamai Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Shigenobu Takatsuka Okayama University In this study we examined the word length effectâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;one characteristic of the phonological loop of working memoryâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in a foreign language. Serial position effects, such as the primacy effect and the recency effect, were observed in the recall of foreign words, similar to results in L1 studies. Recall of long (one-syllable) and short (threesyllable) words in pure (all long or all short) and mixed (long and short) lists was compared. In pure lists, there was a tendency for long words to be more poorly remembered than short words, which we considered to be because of the word length effect. In mixed lists, both long and short words were recalled equally as well as short words were recalled in pure lists. These results indicate that we should pay more attention to item distinctiveness, which elicits the attention of the central executive in working memory, as well as the word length effect in regards to rehearsal speed. Effective use of the phonological loop in listening comprehension is also discussed.

JALT Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, November 2016

149

150

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

本研究は、ワーキングメモリモデルの音韻ループに見られる語長効果について再検討を試みたものである。外国語の単語記銘においても、母国語話者を対象とした研究と同じように初頭効果や新近性効果が確認された。単純リストと混合リストにおける長い語と短い語の再生率を比較したところ、単純リストでは、長い語は短い語よりも再生率が悪くなるという語長効果の傾向が見られるものの、混合リストにおいては、長い語も短い語も単純リストにおける短い語と同程度の再生率であった。これらの結果は、短期記憶容量は決められた項目数ではなく復唱速度が重要な要因であるという語長効果に基づく説明に加えて、ワーキングメモリの中央実行系に注意喚起を促す、項目の示差性などによる説明の必要性があることを示している。本研究では、聴解における音韻ループの効果的な活用についても論じている。

n listening, information is conveyed by speech sounds that gradually decay in memory over time. In the process of listening comprehension learners must store the incoming information in short-term memory while they are trying to analyze it. A variety of cognitive processes function interactively in foreign language listening. The processes include temporal storage of the incoming sound, the matching of prosodic features with the phonological database in prior knowledge, syntactic analysis, and semantic analysis. In the past few decades, working memory as conceived by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and refined by Baddeley (1986, 2000, 2012) has been discussed in terms of information storing and processing. Working memory is considered to be a system that provides temporary storage and allows for active manipulation or processing of the information necessary for complex cognitive tasks such as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning. We must take working memory into consideration when listening comprehension is discussed theoretically. One of the components of the working memory model is the phonological loop. It is considered the main component in analyzing speech input and is believed to play an important role in listening comprehension. The loop is assumed to hold verbal material in a limited-capacity phonological buffer in which traces decay relatively rapidly but may be refreshed by subvocal articulation (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). It should be noted that the input is being subvocally rehearsed not only when listening to one’s native language but also when listening to a foreign language. The key to understanding the capacity of the phonological loop is that it has a time constraint. An early qualification of the capacity limit associated with short-term memory was “the magical number seven plus or minus two” introduced by Miller (1956, p. 81). He suggested that the memory span of young adults was about seven items, called chunks, regardless of whether the items were random lists of letters, words, numbers, or almost any kind of meaningful

Research Forum

151

familiar item. Among cognitive psychologists, memory span was generally thought to be about seven digits, six letters, or five words. On the other hand, some studies have found that the capacity of the loop is not limited by a fixed number of verbal items, but rather by how much a listener can pronounce in approximately 2 seconds (e.g., Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975). Schweickert and Boruff (1986) proposed that memory span does not depend on a magic number but rather on a magic spell, which refers to the ease with which a word can be pronounced, which in turn depends upon the complexity of its spelling. This means that memory span is greater for items that can be pronounced more easily. These studies helped to explain why memory span is different to a certain degree for such dissimilar items as digits, letters, or words. In other words, the size of memory span for verbal items is dependent on the time it takes to articulate them and on subvocal rehearsal speed. Baddeley et al. (1975) found evidence that memory span is time based. They explored the relationship between word length and memory span. Their findings indicated that memory span decreased as the number of syllables in a word increased. Baddeley (1999) noted that â&#x20AC;&#x153;longer words are more difficult to recall because they take longer to articulate during rehearsalâ&#x20AC;? (p. 52). This effect is called the word length effect. It should be noted here that although the effect is called the word length effect, the temporal duration of a word might also determine memory span when the number of syllables and the number of phonemes are constant (Baddeley et al., 1975). Contrary to the findings of the above studies, Hulme, Surprenant, Bireta, Stuart, and Neathâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2004) unexpected results challenged previous influential research on the word length effect on short-term memory. In their study, pure lists of one-syllable (short) words, pure lists of five-syllable (long) words, alternating lists that began with a short word, and alternating lists that began with a long word were presented to native speakers of English. The data showed a large disadvantage for the recall of pure lists of long words. However, the level of recall of words in the other three lists was similar. The results contradict the model that explains the word length effect in terms of what are termed list-based accounts of rehearsal speed, also sometimes referred to as the globalist assumption (Cowan, Baddeley, Elliot, & Norris, 2003). The globalist assumption focuses on recall of each list rather than on each item. According to these explanations, the recall of alternating lists should be worse than that of pure short lists. Alternating lists contain long words and it takes longer to rehearse them. In the phonological loop model, the greater the number of long words there are, the

152

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

fewer the number of words that can be rehearsed in a time-limited loop (Baddeley, 1986). In the slightly different list-based account by Cowan et al. (1992), rehearsal of a long word in the list delays the rehearsal and recall of other words in the list. As a result, long words in the list are allowed to decay more than short words in the list. Hulme et al.’s (2004) comparison of the recall of long and short words in pure and alternating lists also contradicts the model that explains the word length effect in terms of item-based effects such as difficulty in assembling items. The item-based account is also referred to as the localist assumption (Cowan et al., 2003), which focuses on recall of each item rather than on each list. Hulme et al. argued that the word length effect was essentially a word complexity effect and item distinctiveness played a critical role in retrieval. They asserted that longer words are more complex than shorter words and that short words and long words are distinct from each other in alternating lists. The word length effect explains that memory span has a time constraint and speed of rehearsal is important. Cowan and Kail (1996) placed more emphasis on the rehearsal speed. As they pointed out, processing speed and subvocal rehearsal speed greatly affect learners’ memory spans. An increase in memory span facilitates listening comprehension, and processing speed increases subvocal rehearsal speed. In summary, memory span—the capacity of the phonological loop—is determined by how fast listeners can repeat verbal input. Some studies have focused on the pedagogical effects of repetition practice and shadowing practice on EFL listening. For example, Futatsuya and Kaneshige (2001), Takeno (2010), and Tamai (2005) researched the relationship between listening comprehension and the effective use of the phonological loop capacity. Repetition practice places importance on repeating the speech input as accurately as possible immediately after the input is heard while retaining it in the phonological loop. Conversely, shadowing practice puts emphasis on repeating the speech input as accurately as possible while listening to it. Both practices should be considered important in that they can accelerate rehearsal speed and improve bottom-up processing during the process of listening comprehension. These studies were based on the concept of the phonological loop of working memory. The word length effect is one part of the cluster of evidence that supports the phonological loop. The word length effect has been indispensable to the development of theories of performance in immediate serial recall. In immediate serial recall, the first and last items in the series tend to be recalled best and the middle

Research Forum

153

items worst. The greater likelihood of a person to recall the first few items than the middle items is known as the primacy effect; the greater likelihood of recall of the last few items is termed the recency effect. It would be highly problematic if the word length effect, which has played a crucial role in explaining the importance of rehearsal speed, were inaccurate. The research reviewed above shows that immediate serial recall has been investigated with different research designs with native speakers, but very little research, if any, has been conducted with Japanese learners of English on the word length effect in recalling foreign words. The present study was conducted to explore this effect. An examination of the influence of item distinctiveness on recall will help inform both pedagogical decisions and future research on immediate serial recall of foreign words.

Research Questions

Based on the above discussion, three research questions were formulated. RQ1. To what extent are the serial position effects, such as the primacy effect and the recency effect, observed in the recall of foreign words compared with those in L1 research?

RQ2. When comparing the recall of pure lists of short words, pure lists of long words, alternating lists that begin with a short word, and alternating lists that begin with a long word, to what extent do list-based accounts of the word length effect explain the result?

RQ3. When comparing the recall of long and short words in pure and alternating lists, to what extent do item-based accounts of the word length effect explain the result?

Method

In order to confirm that the word length effect had an impact on immediate serial recall of foreign words, our procedure roughly corresponded to Experiment 1 of Hulme et al. (2004), though with some important differences in participants, instruments, design, and procedure, as explained below.

Participants

Seven female and three male 3rd-year undergraduates majoring in EFL volunteered to participate in this research. Their English levels ranged from upper intermediate to advanced. All participants were native speakers of Japanese.

154

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Instruments Two sets of words were used, one set of three-syllable words and one set of one-syllable words. Each set comprised eight words. The set of threesyllable words was gorilla, stomachache, library, Mexico, radio, history, magazine, and calcium; the set of one-syllable words was horse, flu, school, France, switch, art, book, and gold. Each set contained one word from each of eight semantic categories: animals, diseases, education, countries, electronics, subjects, literature, and chemistry. The items from each category were matched as closely as possible for familiarity to the participants, for example, animals (gorilla / horse) and countries (Mexico / France). The words used are a subset of the words used in Baddeley et al. (1975) as was the case with Hulme et al. (2004), except that difficult words from the previous studies were replaced so all the participants in the present study could be expected to know them. Hulme et al. (2004) used five-syllable words for long words and one-syllable words for short words. However, in the present study we used three-syllable words for long words and one-syllable words for short words because, based on our collective teaching experience, we judged lists of five-syllable words to be too difficult for these participants to recall even though their English proficiency was above average for Japanese learners of English. The five-syllable words included in the original pools of words by Baddeley et al. (1975) were hippopotamus, tuberculosis, university, Yugoslavia, refrigerator, physiology, periodical, and aluminium. A total of 24 sequences were generated, equal numbers of four types of lists: pure lists of one-syllable words (pure short), pure lists of three-syllable words (pure long), alternating lists that began with a short word (SLSLSL), and alternating lists that began with a long word (LSLSLS). Six sequences were constructed for each of the four list types according to the following constraints: (a) pure short lists were made from the set of one-syllable words, (b) pure long lists were made from the set of three-syllable words, and (c) alternating lists were constructed by sampling from each of the two sets. Six items were randomly selected for each sequence from one or both of the eight-item sets. The words in each sequence were arranged in random order (see Appendix). A male native speaker of American English recorded all sequences, and items in each sequence were spoken at a rate of one item per second.

Design and Procedure

The research was conducted in the language laboratory at a university in Japan. In order to familiarize participants with the two sets of words used in this study, participants were given a sheet of the words and asked to listen to

Research Forum

155

the 16 words successively through a headset. If paricipants were uncertain of their understanding of a word, the teacher gave an explanation of the word, and the word was pronounced again. Participants were tested on a series of 24 sequences. After each sequence was spoken, the participants were asked to recall the sequence and write down the words in the order of presentation. A response was counted as correct if it was the correct word recalled in the appropriate position.

Results and Discussion

Assessments of immediate serial recall of foreign words were made for the 10 participants, based on their correct recall of each word in the appropriate position. The data were analyzed and the results and discussion of each of the three research questions are presented below.

Research Question 1

To what extent are the serial position effects observed in the recall of foreign words compared with those in L1 research? Table 1 shows the mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of list type and serial position. The mean percentage of each list type is expressed at the right end of the table vertically. The mean percentage of each serial position is expressed at the bottom of the table horizontally and is plotted in Figure 1.

Table 1. Mean Percentage of Words Correctly Recalled in the Appropriate Position as a Function of List Type and Serial Position (N = 10) List type

Serial position 4

Pure short

98.3

83.3

61.7

51.7

21.7

LSLSLS

96.7

78.3

70.0

46.7

23.3

Pure long SLSLSL Mean

88.3 91.7 93.8

75.0 85.0 80.4

53.3 61.7 61.7

30.0 46.7 43.8

Mean

28.3

56.4

6.7

18.3

19.2

20.0

25.0

26.7

53.9 45.3 56.9

Note. SLSLSL = alternating lists that began with a short word; LSLSLS = alternating lists that began with a long word.

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Percentage Correct (%)

156

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1

Serial Position Figure 1. Mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of serial position.

A one-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the mean percentage of words correctly recalled as a function of serial position showed a significant effect, F(5, 18) = 66.40, p < .01, Îˇp2 = .95. A post hoc test adjusted for Bonferroni confirmed that there was a statistically significant effect for serial positions 2 - 3 (p < .05), and 4 - 5 (p < .01), but not for positions 1 - 2, 3 - 4, and 5 - 6. The data in Table 1 and Figure 1 indicate that the first serial position had the highest percentage of correct recall and that the correct recall percentage decreased as serial position increased. From this result, the primacy effect was observed in the recall of foreign words. Moreover, the correct recall percentages for serial positions 5 and 6 were at similar levels. The decrease of correct recall stopped at serial position 5, suggesting that the recency effect played some part in recalling foreign words. Our results are similar to those of Hulme et al. (2004), although that study was not focused on the serial position effect. The serial position effects, such as the primacy effect and the recency effect, are observed in the recall of foreign words, similar to the results of L1 studies.

Research Forum

157

Research Question 2

To what extent do list-based accounts of the word length effect explain the recall of pure lists of short words, pure lists of long words, alternating lists that begin with a short word, and alternating lists that begin with a long word? The data from Table 1 are graphically shown in Figure 2. The mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of list type appears in Figure 3. Percentage Correct (%)

100 90 80 70 60

Pure Short SLSLSL LSLSLS Pure Long

50 40 30 20 10 0 1

3 4 Serial Position

Figure 2. Mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of list type and serial position.

Participants appeared to have difficulty recalling pure lists of long words. It seemed clear that the degree of recall of words in the other three lists was at a similar level to that in Hulme et al. (2004). Hulme et al. asserted that alternating lists are approximately as easy to recall as pure short lists because within each sequence the words are distinctly different in length. We agree with their explanation, although word complexity and familiarity may also be factors. In order to confirm this, comparisons were made of the mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of list type in an ANOVA. The ANOVA yielded no significant difference, F(3, 20) = .177, p > .10, Îˇp2 = .03. Hulme et al. found a large advantage for the recall of pure lists of short words against long words. In the present study, however, the word length effect was not observed in list-based accounts.

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

158

Percentage Correct (%)

65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 Pure Short Pure Long SLSLSL Conditions

LSLSLS

Figure 3. Mean percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position as a function of list type.

The absence of a word length effect in this study may be explained by the constraints employed in generating the two sets of words. The words used were a subset of the words used in Baddeley et al. (1975), except the words we felt might be unfamiliar to the participants were replaced. Also, our study used not five-syllable words, but rather three-syllable words for long words because we believed it is difficult for Japanese learners of English to recall lists of five-syllable words. Further research is necessary to ascertain whether the modifications conducted in our study were appropriate or not. As mentioned earlier, temporal word duration should be taken into consideration when the word length effect is discussed. This topic was not dealt with by Hulme et al. (2004) because the recall of pure lists of short words showed a large advantage against long words in their study and the words in each set were equal in the number of syllables. However, spoken duration was neither adjusted nor matched. In order to explore this question, duration time of each word spoken by the native speaker was measured, using SUGI Speech Analyzer software (<http://www.animo.co.jp/EN/product/>). Details of the words are given in Table 2.

Research Forum

159

Table 2. Spoken Duration in Seconds of Words Used in the Study Short words (one syllable) Word

Horse Flu

School

France Switch Art

Book Gold

Mean

Duration

Long words (three syllables) Word

0.63

Gorilla

0.62

Mexico

0.45 0.70 0.78 0.54 0.42 0.50 0.58

Stomachache Library Radio

History

Magazine Calcium Mean

Duration 0.60 0.98 0.77 0.80 0.69 0.68 0.78 0.80 0.76

A one-way factorial ANOVA revealed that there was a significant difference between the mean duration times, F(1, 14) = 9.42, p < .01, Îˇp2 = .40. Therefore, it can be said that the mean duration time of the three-syllable words used in this study is significantly longer than that of the one-syllable words. However, when it comes to individual words in each semantic category, the duration of a few of the one-syllable words exceeded that of some three-syllable words. For example, the duration of horse is longer than that of gorilla, and switch is longer than radio. If the one-syllable words switch, school, horse, and France are compared with three-syllable words without considering semantic categories, the duration of each word was longer than that of at least one of the three-syllable words. Concerning the word length effect in terms of list-based accounts of rehearsal speed for foreign words, it seems that word duration may affect memory span. In measuring the word length effect, careful attention should be paid not only to the number of syllables in a word, but also to the spoken duration of a word. Another explanation is based on the characteristics of the Japanese language. The Japanese language follows a quasiregular alternation of consonant and vowel. As a natural consequence, Japanese learners of English find it difficult to pronounce words containing complex strings of consonants or words ending with a consonant other than n. It might be the case with Japanese learners of English that the difference in the number of syllables does

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

160

not necessarily influence the time it takes to articulate a word. Japanese learners of English may not be able to differentiate between the time it takes to pronounce the one-syllable words such as school, France, switch, and gold and the three-syllable words such as gorilla, radio, history, magazine, and calcium used in the present study. That might be one of the reasons why the word length effect for list-based accounts was not observed in the study.

Research Question 3

When comparing the recall of long and short foreign words in pure and alternating lists, to what extent do item-based accounts of the word length effect explain the result? In order to analyze the data in the same manner as Hulme et al. (2004), composite lists were derived from the two alternating conditions. As Hulme et al. (2004) pointed out, direct comparisons can be made between how well a word of a given type (long or short) is recalled as a function of the list type it is embedded within (pure or alternating). The percentages of items recalled in the appropriate position expressed in this way are shown in Figure 4.

Percentage Correct (%)

65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30

Pure Short Pure Long Alternating Alternating Short Long Conditions Figure 4. Mean percentage of short and long words correctly recalled in the appropriate position in pure and alternating lists.

Research Forum

161

The data in Figure 4 show that short words seemed to be recalled better than long words in pure lists but not in alternating lists. A 2 (short vs. long words) x 2 (pure vs. alternating lists) ANOVA on the percentage of words correctly recalled in the appropriate position showed a significant effect of list type, F(1, 9) = 7.12, p < .05, Îˇp2 = .08, and a significant list type x length interaction, F(1, 9) = 5.78, p < .05, Îˇp2 = .05. The effect sizes of these results were not large enough to be persuasive, so the results should be viewed with caution. As found by Hulme et al. (2004), the interaction clearly reflected the fact that the substantial difference between the recall of long and short words in pure lists was abolished, as Hulme et al. put it, or negated in the alternating lists. The percentage of long words recalled correctly was marginally larger than that of short words. Despite the fact that the participants in this study were recalling foreign words, the results were very similar to those of Hulme et al. (2004). Still, it seems difficult to assert that the word length effect is essentially a word complexity effect rather than a function simply of the number of syllables. On the other hand, the data seem to support the proposal that item distinctiveness plays a key role in retrieval. Cowan (1999) focused on the function of the central executive in working memory. In his model, the central executive directs attention and controls voluntary processing. Attention and voluntary processing activate focus of attention and enhance maintenance and processing of information for a short time period. Attention is not paid to unchanged stimuli unless the person purposefully directs his or her attention to them. Unchanged stimuli cannot enter the focus of attention without voluntary processing. Conversely, a novel stimulus elicits attention and can enter the focus of attention directly. In support of his model, items in alternating lists in the present study seemed to elicit attention of the central executive because they were different from each other in word length. As a natural consequence, in pure lists, there was a tendency for long words to be more poorly remembered than short words, but in alternating lists, both the long and short words were recalled equally as well as the short words were in pure lists.

Conclusion

The present study examined the credibility of the word length effect among 10 Japanese undergraduates, who listened to and attempted to recall 24 sixword sequences of foreign words. Specifically, we found the following: (a) serial position effects, such as the primacy effect and the recency effect, were

162

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

observed in the recall of foreign words, in line with the findings of Hulme et al. (2004) when participants recalled words in their L1; (b) when comparing the recall of pure lists of short words, pure lists of long words, alternating lists that begin with a short word, and alternating lists that begin with a long word, no significant difference was obtained in recall scores; and (c) when comparing the recall of long and short words in pure and alternating lists, there was a tendency in pure lists for long words to be more poorly remembered than short words, but in alternating lists, both the long and short words were recalled equally as well as the short words were in pure lists. Research question 1 explored how Japanese learners recalled foreign words in immediate serial performance. Serial position effects similar to the results of L1 studies were found in this study. Foreign language learners may be able to recall speech input in the same way that native speakers do. The results for research question 2 do not necessarily negate or, as Hulme et al. (2004) put it, abolish the word length effect. Duration may have affected the results. If so, it supports research on list-based accounts of the word length effect. The results for research question 2 also indicate that more attention should be given to item distinctiveness, which elicits the attention of the central executive in working memory, as well as the word length effect with regard to subvocal rehearsal speed. The interpretation of the results for research question 3 overlaps with that of research question 2, confirming the crucial role of item distinctiveness in retrieval. Baddeley (2007) noted, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The question of how serial order is stored and retrieved is still not fully understoodâ&#x20AC;? (p. 62). Further study should consider word duration, word familiarity, and item distinctiveness. Because the word length effect did not seem to be disproved by this study, we can still assume effective use of the phonological loop capacity pedagogically is indispensable in listening comprehension. In order to make use of the loop capacity effectively, practice in repeating English input quickly and accurately should be a component of English instruction. For example, repetition practice with a focus on rehearsal speed and recognition accuracy should be assigned because it helps make effective use of the phonological loop and aides in backing up longer speech input. The practice should begin with short sentences then move gradually to longer ones. Shadowing practice is also considered to activate the phonological loop of working memory. For example, Tamai (2005) found that shadowing does not necessarily improve aspects of English language knowledge such as lexis or grammar, but it does work to reinforce the strategic aspects of listening such as prosodic features matching and rehearsal speed improvement. These practices

Research Forum

163

eventually promote listening comprehension. This adds more weight to the recommendation made in this paper that word duration, word familiarity, and item distinctiveness in speech should be taken into consideration in future studies of EFL listening comprehension.

Acknowledgment

This research was partially supported by the second author’s Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 15520262). Junichiro Takeno is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of International Liberal Arts at Chugokugakuen University, Japan.

Ken Tamai is a Professor in the Department of International Relations at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Japan.

Shigenobu Takatsuka is a Professor of English language teaching at the Graduate School of Education, Okayama University, Japan.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trend in Cognitive Science, 4, 417-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2 Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29.

Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.158

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47-89). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80045-4

164

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cowan, N., Baddeley, A. D., Elliot, E. M., & Norris, J. (2003). List composition and the word length effect in immediate recall: A comparison of localist and globalist assumptions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 74-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03196469

Cowan, N., Day, L., Saults, J. S., Keller, T. A., Johnson, T., & Flores, L. (1992). The role of verbal output time in the effects of word length on immediate memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(92)90002-f

Cowan, N., & Kail, R. (1996). Covert processes and their development in short-term memory. In S. E. Gathercole (Ed.), Models of short-term memory (pp. 29-50). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Futatsuya, K., & Kaneshige, N. (2001). Practice for recognition accuracy and speeded repetition needed to predict and improve English aural comprehension ability. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 12, 111-119. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Hulme, C., Surprenant, A. M., Bireta, T. J., Stuart, G., & Neath, I. (2004). Abolishing the word-length effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 98-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.98

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Schweickert, R., & Boruff, B. (1986). Short-term memory capacity: Magic number or magic spell? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 419-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.419 Takeno, J. (2010). Phonological memory and other contributing factors affecting listening comprehension of Japanese learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Joint Graduate School (PhD Program) in the Science of School Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education, Kato, Japan.

Tamai, K. (2005). Risuningu shidouhou toshite no shadouingu no kouka ni kansuru kenkyuu [A study on the effect of shadowing in EFL listening pedagogy]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobo.

Research Forum

Appendix Instrument Used in Study 1. magazine, school, stomachache, art, Mexico, book 2. history, stomachache, radio, Mexico, magazine, gorilla 3. book, gold, France, school, flu, switch 4. library, France, Mexico, school, magazine, flu 5. France, gorilla, book, magazine, horse, calcium 6. switch, horse, flu, art, book, gold 7. school, calcium, switch, Mexico, flu, history 8. radio, gold, library, switch, history, book 9. Mexico, library, gorilla, stomachache, magazine, calcium 10. book, library, school, magazine, art, gorilla 11. history, calcium, magazine, library, Mexico, radio 12. art, horse, flu, gold, school, book 13. history, calcium, gorilla, Mexico, stomachache, library 14. switch, library, gold, Mexico, flu, gorilla 15. library, book, calcium, flu, radio, switch 16. France, book, school, art, flu, switch 17. France, magazine, flu, Mexico, art, radio 18. France, art, book, switch, gold, horse 19. Mexico, gold, gorilla, switch, calcium, art 20. history, gorilla, magazine, calcium, library, radio 21. art, switch, flu, school, France, horse 22. book, radio, switch, calcium, France, library 23. history, library, gorilla, radio, magazine, stomachache 24. radio, France, calcium, art, gorilla, school

165

Reviews Corpus Linguistics for Grammar: A Guide for Research. Christian Jones and Daniel Waller. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015. xv + 201 pp. Reviewed by John Cross University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, and Tokai University, Kanagawa

Which of these sentences is grammatically correct? A. Do you see who I see? B. Do you see whom I see? This question is from the Good Grammar Test published by The Telegraph, a U.K. newspaper, and is included in Chapter 2 of Corpus Linguistics for Grammar (p. 19). The answer—or rather answers—to this question, and the reasons for those answers, represent key issues discussed in this clearly written, practical book. The authors argue that use of corpora is the most valid way to analyse grammar, and throughout the volume corpora act as guides to explain how the analysis can be done in a variety of ways. Regarding the question above, the authors explain that one method of answering is by reference to idealistic rules of grammar that state whom is the object in the subordinate clause whom I see and must therefore be in the accusative or objective case. This method is used in the Telegraph’s Good Grammar Test, which gives B as the correct answer. The authors’ preferred method, of course, is a corpus-based investigation. A search of the spoken section of the Corpus of Contemporary American English finds sentence A is rare and B does not occur at all. Even the shorter chunk who I see is “fairly rare” though it occurs four times more frequently than whom I see (p. 20). Further investigation of written corpora also demonstrates that whom is only used in formal, written texts. Such corpus-based investigations not only challenge the Good Grammar Test answer but also imply that the question itself lacks validity. This

JALT Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, November 2016

166

Reviews

167

example highlights differences between corpus-based grammar evidence and intuition or traditional rules. Corpus Linguistics for Grammar has nine chapters and is divided into three parts: “Defining Grammar and Using Corpora,” “Corpus Linguistics for Grammar: Areas of Investigation,” and “Applications of Research.” The chapters are clear, measured, and useful with each including exercises and practice that challenge the reader’s intuitive understanding and knowledge of grammar and reinforce the learning that has taken place. The end of the book provides answers to the tasks and a glossary that explains key terms and concepts. In the first section, the authors define grammar, explain what a corpus is, and demonstrate what it can be used for. Specific examples are provided along with point-by-point comparisons and evaluations of open-access corpora and of open-access corpus analysis software such as LexTutor and AntConc (p. 58). The authors remind us that definitions of grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive. That is to say, understanding should come from knowing what actually happens with language—not from ideals or intuition. They argue that this knowledge may best be found through the use of relevant corpora. This section may be of most use to undergraduate or postgraduate students of linguistics and related subjects. Teachers and experienced researchers will find it a lucid recovering of familiar ground but are likely to be more engaged by Parts 2 and 3. In Part 2, areas of investigation for corpus grammar analysis are discussed, including frequency, chunks (or word clusters), colligations (grammar patterns accompanying words or chunks), and semantic prosody (forms of words with positive, negative, or neutral nuances). For example, the frequency of the chunk I think is compared with I believe, in my opinion, and in my view (p. 113). A survey of a spoken corpus of over 9 billion words shows I think occurs over 200 times more frequently than the other three phrases combined, and I think is also the most frequently occurring of these four items in an academic corpus of more than 15 billion words. In Part 3, the authors consider how the results of corpus grammar analysis could be applied to teaching and research. They suggest that syllabuses, textbooks, and tests may all be improved by a corpus-informed approach. For example, analysis of a written corpus of nearly 16 million words shows the simple past I went is used over 700 times more than the past perfect continuous I had been going (p. 127). Such analysis may be helpful in Japan where learners often seem to have studied and memorized forms without reference to their meaning or communicative importance.

168

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

For written work and tests, successful or accurate samples may be found in corpora and used for teaching or marking (p. 131), and test questions can be based on authentic language items that analysis shows are frequent in a particular genre (p. 132). As suggested by the authors, this approach may be especially useful when a test maker is guided by the “Can do” descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (p. 132). In class, concordance lines can be given to help learners deduce and understand differences in the use and meaning of patterns—an example with the modals must and should is provided (p. 130). In Part 3, the authors also explain, with real examples, how to undertake various types of corpus-based research ranging from comparative genre analysis to understanding how grammar influences meaning in written and spoken political texts. Readers may easily imagine other areas and genres to which such analysis can be applied. Perhaps the main problem with the authors’ approach is that their understanding of lexico-grammar as “a system to make meaning” (p. 28), following Halliday (1975), may be difficult to grasp and apply for learners (and teachers) who are not experts in grammar theory. Although much has been uncovered by corpus analysis, research findings are not necessarily useful pedagogically, and a set of convenient rules, such as “any is for negative and question sentences; some is for positive,” may remain attractive even though the rules are misleading. Nonetheless, Corpus Linguistics for Grammar provides a strong and clear argument in favour of using corpus analysis to improve knowledge and understanding of grammar and also offers many useful examples of research projects in this increasingly important area of study for students and teachers of language. The authors achieve their aims of explaining how to use corpora to analyse grammar and of showing the range of applications such analysis may have, as well as giving practical advice on corpus-based research. Many of the examples may also cause readers to reconsider what they know about grammar and how they know it.

References

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Reviews

169

Task-Based Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition. Mike Long. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. xi + 439 pp.

Reviewed by Martin Hawkes The University of Shiga Prefecture

Since the early 1980s, Mike Longâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research has been closely connected with the developing branch of communicative language teaching now commonly known as task-based language teaching (TBLT). His highly influential interaction hypothesis, along with his concept of focus on form, have been the basis for much of the research agenda associated with TBLT. Much has been written on the use of tasks in second language classrooms, including influential, pedagogically focused volumes like those by Nunan (2004) and Willis and Willis (2007). However, Long sees the majority of interpretations of TBLT to be anything but task based, arguing that they lack some or all of the key characteristics of a true task-based approach. In this volume, Long details the aspects and merits of what he considers a pure task-based approach, as well as the problems inextricably bound to alternative types of language teaching. The bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 12 chapters are divided into three parts. Part 1 gives a background of the theoretical and empirical basis for TBLT. Part 2 outlines the procedures for designing and implementing a task-based approachâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from needs analysis to assessment. Part 3, which consists of only one brief chapter, discusses possible future avenues for TBLT and its research. The 50plus pages of references in the printed version are comprehensive and the outlines that appear on the opening page for each chapter are quite useful. However, the three pages that make up the rather sparse index are a disappointment as some topics that are covered in detail in the text are not listed in the index. In Chapter 1, Long outlines his long-held views about a pure version of TBLT, which places needs analysis in a central and fundamental position and sees any preplanned linguistic focus as unacceptable. Long believes that the original notion of TBLT has been diluted by subsequent writers on the topic. We also see the complete lack of regard he holds for authors and publishers of commercial teaching materials, a common theme that runs throughout the book.

170

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Chapter 2 reviews the two polar views that have dominated language teaching over the years; that is, whether teachers should focus on language forms or meaning. Long dismisses focus-on-form approaches as being incompatible with SLA research findings from the past 50 years. He also argues that a strong focus on meaning is irresponsibly inadequate for language development. He then goes on to outline succinctly his third way: a focus-on-form approach in which teachers attend to linguistic problems reactively as they arise in class. In Chapter 3, Long describes the cognitive-interactionist approach to instructed SLA that forms the theoretical underpinning of TBLT. Through the model, he argues that implicit learning is very much the primary vehicle for second language development; but he sees the role of negotiation for meaning and corrective feedback, common themes in the TBLT literature, as important for making SLA more efficient. In Chapter 4, the last of the first part of the book, Long describes nine philosophical tenets that underpin TBLT. For some of these—such as the education approaches of l’education integrale, or learning by doing—the links with TBLT are obvious, and it is easy to follow Long’s argument. Others might find the claims that TBLT is more rational, egalitarian, or emancipatory than other approaches to language teaching a bit too much. Long concedes that these underpinnings are not fundamentals and that it is possible to implement TBLT without holding all of the same principles that are detailed here. Chapters 5 to 7 cover the topic of needs analysis (NA) in some detail. Long’s emphasis on the necessity of an NA is perhaps what distinguishes his version of TBLT from some other versions (e.g., Willis & Willis, 2007). He argues that an NA must identify target tasks, that is, the everyday tasks that learners aspire to be able to do in an L2. These chapters cover the sources of information and research methods that are often used to determine target tasks and discourse and provide plenty of concrete examples. The emphasis on NA makes Long’s view of TBLT particularly appropriate for practitioners working in the context of language for specific purposes. However, Long briefly concedes that in some contexts it may be true that heterogeneous groups of learners have no specific L2 needs, for example Japanese and Korean primary education contexts. Although he devotes less than a page to this point, I could not help thinking that a fairly large proportion of L2 learners around the world would fall into this category. In Chapter 8, Long discusses the issues involved with task-based syllabus design. After initially outlining the various types of syllabus that have been proposed over the years and their various weaknesses, he details two

Reviews

171

aspects of a task-based syllabus: the selection of pedagogic tasks from the target tasks identified through the NA and the issue of task sequencing. In Chapter 9, he begins by outlining some principles for making taskbased pedagogical materials, urging that they be relevant and motivating and that they possess a real-world connection. He argues that when teachers simplify the vocabulary or structures in texts, it does little for their students’ language development. Instead, he proposes that elaboration be used to clearly convey the meaning of potentially problematic linguistic forms. Following this, he moves into practical issues; that is, how to actually employ tasks in the classroom. He begins by demonstrating sequences of tasks designed for use with beginning learners, emphatically arguing against the essentialist view that these are groups for which TBLT is not suitable (e.g., Lai, 2015). Next, he shows how target tasks identified through an NA might be realised by pedagogical tasks for elementary to advanced learners. True to the real-world claim, these tasks include understanding drug labels, being stopped by traffic police, and delivering a sales report. In Chapter 10, based on the arguments made earlier, Long sets out the following 10 methodological principles that he believes should be the cornerstone of any approach to language teaching: using tasks as syllabus units, promoting learning by doing, elaborating input, providing rich input, encouraging chunk learning, using focus-on-form techniques, providing negative evidence, respecting the internal learner syllabus, promoting cooperative language learning, and individualising instruction. The chapter closes with Long’s argument that individual teachers are best positioned to decide how these principles should be applied in their unique classroom settings. Chapter 11 outlines assessment in TBLT. Long proposes that criterionreferenced performance tests should be used “to determine whether each student can or cannot perform target tasks at a satisfactory level” (p. 331). The temptation to add a linguistic element should, however, be avoided. Finally, he details some of the studies that have attempted to directly compare TBLT with focus-on-form approaches and argues that, from the limited evidence we have available, it appears that TBLT may hold some advantages for acquisition. Chapter 12, the final chapter, is only seven pages long and outlines some of the threats and opportunities for TBLT going forward, including a summary of areas for research mentioned in the earlier chapters. This volume provides a comprehensive treatment of the many theoretical and practical issues connected to the use of tasks in L2 learning. The arguments for a psycholinguistic rationale to TBLT and the methodological

172

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

principles that are detailed are convincing and easy to digest. The details of previous empirical studies provided in these sections would be excellent for those conducting research in this area. However, I wonder if the emphasis on NA and the insistence that practitioners who are not following Long’s methods are not doing TBLT “properly” may alienate some readers who consider themselves to be following a task-based approach. All in all, I found the volume to be reasonably engaging and containing a wealth of information on many aspects of the TBLT field.

References

Lai, C. (2015). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Where are we now and where are we going? In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 12-29). London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Putting CLIL Into Practice. Phil Ball, Keith Kelly, and John Clegg. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. xiii + 320 pp. Reviewed by Laura MacGregor Gakushuin University

This book is aimed at helping both subject teachers and language teachers who are new to content and language integrated learning become more effective CLIL practitioners. New definitions of methodology and fresh perspectives on how to integrate language in content classes and content in language classes will also be of interest to seasoned CLIL teachers. This volume, from the Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers series, is particularly instructive in the way it shows language teachers what goes on in subject classes and guides subject teachers on how to provide linguistic support. The first part (Chapters 1 to 4) presents the authors’ CLIL theories, and the second part (Chapters 5 to 10) is oriented toward practice, including sample tasks with extracts from subject textbooks for primary to secondary

Reviews

173

CLIL programs mostly in the Basque region. With some adaptation, these models should be useful references for teachers of these levels in other parts of the world and for tertiary level teachers as well. Each chapter begins with an overview and ends with a summary, a task, and a further reading list. Other resources include a glossary of terms, suggested answers to tasks, and a full reference list. Teacher resources, including chapter discussion questions, annotated lists of web links to related sites, and a note from the authors are available online at <www.oup.com/ elt/teacher/clil>. Chapter 1 begins with a look at several contexts for L2 education (e.g., immersion, bilingual, and English-medium) and factors that “make it easier or more difficult for learners to learn through a second language” (p. 11) including learner and teacher L2 ability, exposure and time, teacher pedagogical skill, and learner literacy and cognitive skills. In Chapter 2, the authors explain that CLIL was originally intended for subject teachers to help them support the language needs of their students (p. 27). Later, as language teachers began taking an interest, CLIL’s scope widened, and the notion of soft CLIL and hard CLIL emerged for linguistic aims and subject-based aims respectively. The authors consider it insufficient to define CLIL as an “umbrella term covering a dozen or more educational approaches” (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 12). To better recognize CLIL as a methodology or “a way of teaching and learning subjects in a second language” (p. 1), they offer 10 features characterizing CLIL (e.g., conceptual sequencing, making key language salient, text-task relationship, and supporting thinking skills). Chapter 3 is perhaps the core of the book; it is here that the relationship between language and content is made clear. The authors reject the notion of CLIL as a dual-focused (language and content) approach (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1). Instead, they consider language to be a form of content and one of content’s three dimensions: conceptual, procedural, and linguistic. Using a mixing board metaphor, they show how the volume of each dimension can be adjusted according to the teaching and learning aims. Chapter 4 is about the language aspect of CLIL, beginning with the basics (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, discourse markers), then moving on to seven principles for language practice. Language is broken down further into three types: subject-specific language, general academic language, and peripheral language (interactional language) with examples illustrating each. The next two chapters provide actual classroom how-tos for teachers. Chapter 5 is focused on helping students understand the language and or-

174

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

ganization of the input content and decode the meaning. To highlight the need for CLIL teachers to be aware of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;shape of the contentâ&#x20AC;? (p. 106), the authors use the example of a lesson on global warming and outline how the goals of a language lesson will differ from those of a subject class. Inputprocessing tasks are presented as two types: word- and phrase-level tasks (e.g., matching terms and definitions or reading a text and filling in a chart), and whole-text content analysis (e.g., tables, flow diagrams, and note-taking charts). Activities for both task types use visuals to show how to extract and organize language and key ideas from a text and present them to students. In Chapter 6, the authors present a number of speaking and writing tasks to show the kinds of language support that teachers can give for output tasks. Chapter 7 includes seven principles for materials design, many of which are based on elements discussed earlier in the book, such as the three dimensions of content (Chapter 3), guiding input and supporting output (Chapters 5 and 6), and thinking in sequences (Chapter 2). Once again, sample tasks illustrate and explain each principle. Readers are reminded to think about the types of language needed to complete the tasks and to include the necessary support, thus reaffirming the primacy of language in good CLIL practice. The discussion of student assessment in Chapter 8 begins with a review of common types: formative, summative, peer, self, and portfolio. The authors return to the mixing board metaphor to illustrate how concepts, procedures, and language can be approached and prioritized in assessment tasks. They point out that assessment in CLIL must reflect the teaching and learning that took place (p. 240) and that the language students are required to produce should not hinder them in demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of a subject. Chapter 9 presents factors to consider when implementing CLIL programs, including how they fit into the whole school structure, the interests of the stakeholders, the classes that will adopt CLIL, the students that will take them, and the teachers that will teach them. General readers and those leading and managing CLIL will each benefit from the table outlining a 4-stage process in program development based on these factors (pp. 264-265). In Chapter 10, the authors suggest that to work with CLIL as a methodology, teachers need specialized training beyond that of foreign language teaching or subject teaching. Teacher training should address guiding input and supporting learner output, scaffolding language and learning, using process-focused assessment, making key language salient, and developing cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Of special significance to the many nonnative English teachers and nonnative English as a medium

Reviews

175

of instruction (EMI) teachers in classrooms around the globe is that the authors believe that strong pedagogical awareness can compensate for a lack of language skill or proficiency. The reverse, on the other hand, is said to not be true. The authors also note that CLIL teacher training is still in development. As CLIL teaching continues to expand and mature from its grassroots, bottomup origin and CLIL programs get better institutional recognition and support, CLIL teacher training needs should become better addressed. With this volume, readers are offered a fresh approach to thinking about what CLIL is and how to teach it. The extensive selection of excellent task examples is highly instructive and can become a bank of ideas for teachers to adapt to their teaching contexts. As in other writing on CLIL (e.g., Mehisto, 2012; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008), the chapters in this book introduce many sets of features or characteristics (e.g., seven features of CLIL). However, it would be helpful if the headings for these sections were numbered in the body of the chapters with a summary provided in tables that could be itemized after the table of contents. Also, it would be useful if the sources listed in the end-of-chapter reading lists were included in the reference list at the end of the book. These two small weaknesses are incidental, and the excellent training and support covered in this book make it a must-have volume for anyone serious about CLIL.

References

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15-33. Retrieved from http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/21-01-2014/mehisto_criteria_for_producing_clil_learning_material.pdf

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.

176

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Reflective Teaching in Higher Education. Paul Ashwin, David Boud, Kelly Coate, Fiona Hallett, Elaine Keane, Kerri-Lee Krause, Brenda Leibowitz, Iain MacLaren, Jan McArthur, Velda McCune, and Michelle Tooher. London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015. xiv + 414 pp. Reviewed by John Nevara Kagoshima University

Back at the beginning of the millennium, Gardiner (2000) penned an insightful article forecasting the growth of faculty development in higher education in the United States. In one particularly prescient passage, he wrote the following: College teaching increasingly will be viewed as a true profession in its own right, underpinned by a solid base of knowledge derived from empirical studies on learning and student development, college effects on students, and the management of learning in complex organizations. Professors will be understood to need solid grounding in both theory and practice in both higher education and one or more disciplinary content areas. (para. 1)

In Japanese higher education, the growth of faculty development appears to lag a good two decades behind that in many other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. However, faculty development, or FD as it is commonly called in Japan, has undoubtedly reached these shores, and language teachers cannot ignore the movement. A solid knowledge of higher education studies—those studies into the various theoretical and practical issues related to teaching and learning in the context of higher education— is becoming crucial, and acquisition of such knowledge may very well start with the careful reading of a good book on the subject. Reflective Teaching in Higher Education is a multiauthored and remarkably exhaustive tome totalling 414 pages that offers a good introduction to the issues involved in becoming a better university teacher, although as in any growing field, other books also exist that could serve roughly the same purpose. On the plus side, Reflective Teaching in Higher Education provides a tre-

Reviews

177

mendously comprehensive overview of the main issues confronting teachers in the university system. All 11 authors are frontline experts in their particular subfields of higher education studies and their cumulative knowledge, as put on paper in this text, is quite impressive. They tackle issues ranging from technology to diversity and from assessment to professionalism, all divided into 17 tidy but cohesive units. Few books give such a broad yet detailed overview of the various complex functions involved in being an effective university professor. The authors of the text also provide numerous relevant research briefings in each unit, so it is possible to gain a relatively deep understanding of the prevalent research findings in the field of higher education teaching. However, the most outstanding feature of this text is its determined effort to equip readers with the tools to engage in relatively systematic and critical reflective practice. A coupling of the research findings and the reflective activities in the book can be the starting point for a motivated teacher’s growth. As the authors themselves state, we as readers can take “the methodological use of evidence to inform our judgements as reflective teachers in higher education” (p. ix). Unfortunately, some of the strengths of this text can also be considered limitations. For example, research findings and reflective activities are conspicuous, but conclusions (i.e., tips and techniques) are left for the reader to deduce. Likewise, theoretical knowledge tends to be proffered rather more often than practical know-how. Teachers who would prefer straightforward advice for the classroom might fancy a different text, such as Teaching at its Best (Nilson, 2016) or McKeachie’s Teaching Tips (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2014). Furthermore, in this book, lecturers in the United Kingdom are clearly the intended audience. Of the 11 coauthors, six work in the United Kingdom, two in Ireland, two in Australia, and one in South Africa. Readers hailing from the United States, or those having entirely built their careers in Asia, might find some of the information irrelevant (i.e., too U.K.-centred). The issue goes beyond mere linguistic differences, such as the British preference for terms such as modules or bursaries, but rather extends to a preference for certain educational ideals and theories (e.g., a preference for British research and British scholars). There is also a casual familiarity with institutional practices such as A Levels and external marking of exams. In addition, the theoretical underpinnings for the entire text come unapologetically from principles devised for the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), an arm of the semigovernmental U.K.-based Economic and Social Research Council. The book itself seems perfectly designed for use in a graduate-level higher

178

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

education teaching certificate program in the United Kingdom, making it perhaps less than ideal for other environments. Regardless of its shortcomings, however, this text does provide an excellent introduction to higher education pedagogy for all teachers, including second and foreign language instructors. Some units in the book do stand out, such as Chapter 13 on assessment and Chapter 14 on quality, perhaps because these are two areas in which Japan’s approach straggles behind the best practices in the United Kingdom. Overall, Reflective Teaching in Higher Education is unique within the market and quite deservedly should see a significant readership in the future, but nowadays many other excellent introductory texts on teaching in higher education do exist, such as Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Biggs & Tang, 2011) or Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (Light, Cox, & Calkins, 2009). Choices abound. For teachers seeking an up-to-date introduction to the burgeoning literature on pedagogical considerations in higher education, this text can be recommended as comprehensive and detailed, if somewhat U.K.-centred. For teachers with a strong desire to incorporate reflective practice into their teaching, this text might be the best on the market. Teachers preferring something more practical and straightforward without a heavy dose of reflective practice might find that another book better meets their needs.

References

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Gardiner, L. (2000). Faculty development in higher education. Retrieved April 30, 2016 from <http:www.thenationalacademy.org/readings/facdev.html> Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Nilson, L. (2016). Teaching at its best. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reviews

179

Creativity in Language Teaching: Perspectives From Research and Practice. Rodney H. Jones and Jack C. Richards (Eds.). New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. x + 264 pp.

Reviewed by Daniel Tang Otemae University

According to the Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.), creativity is the “use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness.” Creatively enough, a slew of other dictionaries all express the same essential meaning, albeit in different ways. Alas, this is the subjective and hard-to-define nature of creativity, a notion that many teachers have also struggled with. Thankfully, 20 professionals address many of the practical and conceptual issues in Creativity in Language Teaching: Perspectives from Research and Practice. The editors examine creativity through four main dimensions: linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural, and pedagogic. The book is structured with four main sections titled: “Theoretical Perspectives,” “Creativity in the Classroom,” “Creativity in the Curriculum,” and “Creativity in Teacher Development.” A theoretical foundation is a sound point to begin any discussion and the authors do not err in doing so. The essential role of creativity in language teaching is central to Section I. Jones, in Chapter 2, notes that creativity is not necessarily about writing poetry or imagining fantastical scenarios, but rather it is the simple act of supporting student development of their ability to use language in creative actions in their daily lives. How can creativity be used to enrich? When does it become a burden? What is demanded of language teachers is balance. The importance of balance is highlighted with an examination of creativity versus conformity in language learning, between “the permissive and the conformist” (p. 45), and the essential element of promoting creative and natural language use is contrasted with rule-based, target-language norms. These discussions are followed with suggestions that teachers examine themselves and their audience when implementing creativity, especially when considering cultural differences—something surely pertinent for teachers here in Japan. Section II, “Creativity in the Classroom,” contains four chapters dealing with the praxis of creativity. The examples cover qualitative and quantitative aspects, from teacher self-reflection to the use of multilingual texts in the

180

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

classroom. This section seems to be the weakest in the book. Although it is peppered with useful observations and examples, many cases are neither unique nor groundbreaking. For example, Richards and Sara Cotterall state that “creative teachers develop custom-made lessons that match their students’ needs and interests or adapt and customize the book to match their students’ interests” (p. 106). Yes, indeed! Although a rather elementary observation, this may prove to be a useful reminder for a teacher just starting his or her career. Such a comment may also open creative avenues for those working within a set curriculum and who may too often be focused on only teaching what is on the page of the assigned textbook. After examining examples in the classroom, the editors take a look at “Creativity in the Curriculum.” In Chapter 11, at the beginning of Section III, Kathleen Graves provides a useful definition of creativity as a “generative system within a domain of thinking” and one that is also the “ability to come up with ideas that are new, surprising, and valuable” (p. 166). This is valuable in regards to considering curriculum design and its five dimensions: conceptual (overall purpose), contextual (for whom and where will it be used), constructional (what materials are available and how the curriculum would be put together), interactional (how it will be used in the classroom), and assessment (what the learning outcomes are). Graves then provides four examples that illustrate the key to having sustained adoption and use: that is, to ensure that all five dimensions are aligned through the involvement of all teachers involved in the implementation of the curriculum. Importantly, a teacher at any level is encouraged to identify and experiment with curriculum constraints and gaps, discover new possibilities, and transform the curriculum. The next chapter deals with the use of creativity and technology. The highlight from this chapter is that the use of technology does not automatically ensure a creative product. Teachers have to make sure that language use creatively empowers their students at each stage. Christoph A. Hafner, in the final chapter in the section, deals with injecting creativity into Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) curricula. The main challenge is to design tasks that focus on “small-c creativity” and require only a certain amount of innovation (p. 202). In this respect, language transformation tasks are essential, for example, transforming a spoken genre to a written one or a specialized one to a more popular one. An example is a science podcast for a general audience transformed into a report for a specialist audience. Creativity is thus not always large scale but can be modest, albeit still useful, in its application.

Reviews

181

The purpose of the three chapters making up Section IV is to examine the notion and use of “Creativity in Teacher Development.” The section is composed mostly of examples and is easy to digest. For example, a conversation between an MA candidate and her supervisor is the mode of creative expression in Chapter 14. The reader discovers that one of the key techniques for creative use is to link abstract and new ideas with concrete and familiar concepts. Chapter 15 introduces the idea of creativity as resistance, as a form for teachers to effectively adapt away from top-down, prescribed, and stagnant policies. A case study from Australia is used to illustrate this. Finally, the use of “narrative inquiry” is examined in the final chapter of the book. As the name suggests, the methodology concerns the use of stories and story making to understand and reflect on experiences. Self-reflection, discussion, and engagement with colleagues’ narratives may facilitate “multiple interpretations, stimulate imaginative and creative responses, and prove meaningful and pleasurable” (p. 252). One of the standout features of this book is the Questions for Discussion and Suggestions for Further Research sections at the end of each chapter. The vast majority of the questions are relevant, thought provoking, and immediately useful in theoretical and practical realms. The only criticism of the book is its structure. At times, a reader could be left wondering exactly what section they are in, as was the reviewer. Multiple chapters from Sections II, III, and IV could be justifiably interchanged. Perhaps this just reflects the diverse, challenging, and all-encompassing nature of creativity and its incorporation into the integrated classroom, curriculum, and teaching and development. This book is definitely one for the teacher’s bookshelf.

Reference

Creativity. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creativity>

182

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Task-Based Language Learning: Insights From and For L2 Writing. Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón (Eds.). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins, 2014. xii + 312 pp. Reviewed by Jennifer Louise Teeter Kyoto University

Contentious debates on explicit versus implicit teaching aside, the taskbased language teaching (TBLT) theoretical framework is an influential contribution to communicative language teaching approaches. Although the “task” originally gained traction primarily amongst oral communication teachers, the question remains as to what other applications task has to other language skills. Task-Based Learning: Insights From and for L2 Writing, is an attempt to answer this question by exploring the applications of TBLT theory to the teaching of writing and how this line of inquiry can inform constructions of task in applied language studies. Byrnes is currently implementing a task-based curriculum at Georgetown University and also serves as editor-in-chief of the Modern Language Journal. Manchón has extensively researched second language writing and has been an editor for the Journal of Second Language Writing. The fundamental theme of this volume is a reconsideration of the privileging of oral communication tasks in TBLT. The editors posit that by widening the scope of practice to writing, “one should expect new insights to come from writing that can enhance our understanding and use of tasks, and one should also expect insights that have informed TBLT to be beneficial for our understanding of the learning and teaching of writing” (p. 1). The book is divided into three parts with 11 chapters contributed by authors who are approaching the use of TBLT in writing from a variety of perspectives in Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and in different target languages including English, French, German, and Spanish. Following the introduction, which outlines the potential for cross-fertilization between TBLT theory and the teaching of writing, Part I (Chapters 2 -4) provides a theoretical framework. Part II (Chapters 5-10) comprises empirical studies with a variety of designs including longitudinal and comparative designs. The chapters in Part II draw on a wide range of writing data, such as short topic-based 10-minute writing tasks, project write-ups on wiki pages, narratives, argumentation, and ana-

Reviews

183

lytical essays. Part III (Chapter 11) is a coda providing insights into future research and practical applications. The introduction underscores the importance of removing writing research from the sidelines of TBLT research. After outlining the justifications SLA researchers have held for positioning writing auxiliary to speech, Byrnes and Manchón consider the benefits that adapting the concept of task to writing, rather than to general oral task constructs, will contribute to the knowledge about the processes involved in learning to write. The authors suggest a shift to viewing writing as a meaning-rich endeavor with learners at the center and encourage a research focus that intertwines complexity-accuracy-fluency variables, cognitive processing skills theory, and dynamic systems theory. They also explore ways research into theories originally developed for oral tasks, such as the limited attention capacity model (see Skehan, 2001) and the cognition hypothesis (see Robinson, 2003) can be adapted to writing. Manchón’s Chapter 2 provides a foundation for the theory that frames this volume. She questions the attention given to “task manipulation” and “task performance” and calls for a shift of focus to “task interpretation and task execution processes and potential learning outcomes” (p. 28). Making the case for an expanded definition of task that acknowledges the meaningmaking nature of writing such as the decision-making and problem-solving processes in a variety of tasks, she details how integration, planning, and task repetition in TBLT would benefit from reconceptualization. In Chapter 3, Ernesto Macaro proposes a research agenda that prioritizes process and a focus on learner strategies and linguistic knowledge over completion and outcome of writing tasks. He bridges theory with real-world application through a case study of two learners writing in French. Chapter 4, by Byrnes, outlines a theory of guiding pragmatic applications of a learner- and meaning-focused approach to writing with an “extended ‘building up’ of registerial repertoires across an entire program” (p. 93). The theoretical perspective of Part 1 shapes the direction of the subsequent empirical studies that shed light on psycholinguistic processes and meaning-making aspects of task in writing. Ryo Nitta and Kyoko Baba utilize a dynamic systems framework in a 30-week long study at a Japanese university in Chapter 5. They emphasize the nonlinear impact of interaction over time to guide examinations of whether task repetition in writing improves written performance, in particular due to opportunities for conscious monitoring of form and meaning through the act of revision in writing practice. In a study of Malaysian civil engineering majors taking English for professional communication courses, the Chapter 6 coauthors Rebecca Adams,

184

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

Sara Amani, Jonathan Newton, and Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi explore how planning time positively impacts computer-mediated communication. Framed by a cognitive information-theoretic approach, task complexity in an advanced college-level Spanish class in the United States is examined by Marcela Ruiz-Funes in Chapter 7, utilizing two writing tasks of differing complexities. Chapter 8 by Judit Kormos provides a valuable contribution to understanding the links between and linguistic differences of the spoken and written word by analyzing narrative tasks in an English-Hungarian bilingual secondary school program. Parvaneh Tavakoli (Chapter 9) explores a similar theme regarding task complexity in different modalities. She assesses the appropriateness of conceptualizing task complexity models as the same for oral and written communication. In Chapter 10, Byrnes takes the aforementioned studies one step further by highlighting connections between the studies in the volume and curricular development, proposing grammatical metaphor to inform assessment of developmental change. Her analysis and suggestions, based on an empirical and longitudinal study, benefit not only those involved in creating an overarching curriculum but also practitioners engaged in assessing and helping students enhance and develop complexity in their language learning. Together these chapters provide a foundation for further exploration of TBLT writing, theory, and research, as explained in Part III. The editors draw attention to the “learner-internal” dynamics of tasks, the potential of “writing-to-learn” and “learning-to-write” conceptualizations, and a move beyond typical deficiency-oriented complexity-accuracy-fluency assessments of language proficiency for writing by focusing on the internal meaning-making of individual learners. As Volume 7 of the Task-Based Language Teaching Series from John Benjamins, this resource serves as an important contribution to TBLT literature by providing thoughtful applications and arguments for making writing more central to TBLT for benefits in language learning and writing research. Although the theory section is more accessible to scholars who are well versed in the tenets and debate surrounding TBLT, it is appropriate for researchers and practitioners alike who are interested in enhancing their knowledge of TBLT, the processes involved in learning writing, and the practice of teaching writing. Much of the evaluation in the empirical studies, as conceded by the editors, is still performance based. Nonetheless, this is balanced by the concurrent focus of most of the studies on learner processes and a focus on meaningmaking via writing. However, more emphasis on qualitative techniques that assess the making of meaning could further provide practical applications

Reviews

185

to research based on the volumeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theoretical foundation. Although higher levels of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in writing can contribute to more sophisticated conveyance of meaning, the presence of complexity alone does not ensure effective transmission of meaning. In addition, the main focus of research used in this volume is the task, although there is some work on pretasks. Analysis drawing upon all of the implementation phases of TBLT in a study could provide more input into the range of effective techniques for different purposes. Finally, although Byrnes hints at this in Chapter 4, the shifting landscape of SLA, in which nonnative varieties of English are gaining prominence and status, compels a larger focus on world Englishes in evaluation, assessment, and theory production. These limitations aside, this volume will no doubt stimulate further and much needed research into the intersections of TBLT and writing, as well as development of practical applications of writing research.

References

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167-185). London, UK: Longman.

186

JALT Journal, 38.2 â&#x20AC;˘ November 2016

Interlanguage: Forty Years Later. ZhaoHong Han and Elaine Tarone (Eds.). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins, 2014. viii + 255 pp. Reviewed by Akie Yasunaga Tokyo Keizai University

Forty years ago, Selinker (1972) hypothesized that there was an independent linguistic system activated within the minds of L2 learners when they attempted to express meaning. He termed it interlanguage. This concept significantly contributed to a better understanding of L2 research and the development of multiple theoretical viewpoints in SLA. Interlanguage: Forty Years Later elucidates those advancements in theories related to interlanguage studies based on solid empirical, theoretical, and pedagogical research on SLA. The book is divided into 10 chapters, each of which is written by a renowned scholar in the field of SLA. In Chapter 1, Tarone reviews the original ideas postulated by Selinker that include (a) the psychological structures different from childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s L1 structures that are operating in the minds of adult L2 learners when they produce meaningful utterances in a target language (TL); (b) fossilization; and (c) the differences in linguistic performance between meaning-based and accuracy-based (e.g., drills) language production in a TL. These themes are then explored in depth in the succeeding chapters. In Chapter 2, Terence Odlin examines syntactic transfer from L2 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; native language systems to the TL systems. He argues that two kinds of grammatical transfer regularly appear in particular linguistic properties, such as article systems, gender markings, and prefix and suffix systems. One is positive transfer: L2 learners apply some of the syntax from their L1 systems to the TL system when producing an utterance. The other is negative transfer: L2 learners resist internalizing particular forms of the TL that are dissimilar to their L1 forms. Next, Han explores the construct of fossilization in Chapter 3. She examines inter- and intra-learner differential success and failure in L2 language development, reviewing case studies of individual adult L2 learners in relation to their linguistic and social backgrounds. Using these case studies, she investigates linguistic properties most often fossilized and argues that fossilization is selective and local. That is, syntactic transfer of the speak-

Reviews

187

ers’ unique L1 systems and their experience with discourse pragmatics are embedded in every instance of interlanguage. In Chapter 4, Silvina Montrul investigates the phenomena of transfer, simplification, and fossilization. She discusses adult L2 learners’ ability to access universal grammar in the context of bilingualism and multilingualism. Using research findings on the language proficiency of members of immigrant communities, she argues that L2 learners develop syntactic features from input and develop such features systematically. She also postulates that some features of language change may be a consequence of the transmission of interlanguage such as through incomplete language transfer or fossilization among members of speech communities where language contact occurs. Selinker (1972) posited that L2 learners could not possibly achieve nativelike competence from formal explicit instruction. In Chapter 5, Bill VanPatten investigates this issue by looking at the limitations of instruction. He argues that interlanguage systems develop independently and systematically out of formal instruction, showing common trajectories toward language acquisition as in the example of staged development of syntactic systems. He contends that L2 development is associated with building underlying mental representations of the language through language input, internal language related mechanisms (e.g., universal grammar), and human-internal mechanisms for processing meaning. In Chapter 6, using a functional approach to linguistic analysis, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig maintains that L2 learners construct TL forms from their accessible linguistic resources—the ones they have experienced in their history of language learning. L2 learners may utter novel TL forms in a particular context (e.g., pragmatic discourse), but this is because their control over TL forms has not yet stabilized. In other words, pragmatic discourse in the TL is constrained by L2 learners’ internalized TL forms. In Chapter 7, Susan Gass and Charlene Polio discuss the appropriateness of certain research methodologies with relevance to Selinker’s claim that interlanguage studies should focus on analyzing observable data that reveal psychological operations when a learner is producing a sentence in an L2. They argue that grammatical judgment tests, nonsense word studies, and artificial languages are not relevant to observable data for the analysis of interlanguage because L2 learners are not engaged in producing meaningful utterances. In Chapter 8, Lourdes Ortega examines Selinker’s objections to making descriptions prior to explaining theoretical foundations. Ortega reviews

188

JALT Journal, 38.2 • November 2016

advancements in the description of the acquisition of negation over the past 40 years, from foundational theories of developmental stages and sequence, to variationist and usage-based sociocultural approaches—building schema and accumulating language resources from input affordances. As Ortega notes, researchers have refined and expanded descriptions by applying different theoretical interpretations while using differential analytical tools and theoretically bolstered explanations. In Chapter 9, Diane Larsen-Freeman examines successes and failures in L2 learning from the standpoints of nativeness and nonnativeness. Researchers tend to regard interlanguage development in terms of an idealized TL norm, viewing the end goal of L2 learning as native or near-native TL fluency. However, Larsen-Freeman argues that L2 learners’ interlanguage and the TL norm never converge. She suggests that we should not use a fixed state of native-like language attainment as a yardstick, but instead reconcile naturalistic language development and the native-like TL norm. Most fittingly, in the final chapter, Selinker himself examines unresolved issues in interlanguage study: the system of fossilization and our understanding of the interlanguage system. Selinker vehemently rejects the notion of interpreting interlanguage data by imposing an externally derived system, the TL norm, or deriving learning theories from children’s L1 acquisition. Selinker calls for creating “deep interlanguage semantics” (p. 234), which describe and explain learners’ unclear, nontarget-like, novel forms associated with learner intentions together with their L1 system, the TL system, and the societal background. This stance is rationalized on the basis that each form should entail idiosyncratic meanings. Selinker’s (1972) seminal paper Interlanguage brought about three important changes in the study of SLA. First, it dramatically shifted our strategy for researching L2 acquisition from analyzing practice-based drills toward studying meaningful language production. Second, the conceptualization of three separate systems (L1, TL, and interlanguage) coexisting in the minds of L2 learners significantly broadened research methodologies in the field of SLA as elucidated in this book. Finally, Selinker helped to distinguish adult L2 learners’ latent psychological state in the brain from the psychological state of latent language structure postulated by Lenneberg (1967). The arguments made in this book are definitely compelling. When compared with 40 years ago, we now acknowledge, first, that fossilization is not global but occurs in selective linguistic properties because there is a closely interrelated link between fossilizable syntax features and language transfer from an L1 to a TL system. Second, we have expanded our understanding of

Reviews

189

what we now call nonnative varieties of English observed among members of speech communities and their relationship to interlanguage. Third, we are now convinced that interlanguage systems exist in their own right, and this realization has expanded SLA theoretical viewpoints as opposed to Cookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2008) multicompetence theory, which held that L2 learners possess both L1 and L2 knowledge in one mind, and Ortegaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2013) proposition of a bior multilingual turn. Through this book scholars and doctoral students alike can gain invaluable insights that are useful for their future SLA research.

References

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London, UK: Hodder Education. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Ortega, L. (2013). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32-53). New York, NY: Routledge. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209

Information for Contributors All submissions must conform to JALT Journal Editorial Policy and Guidelines.

Editorial Policy

JALT Journal, the refereed research journal of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (Zenkoku Gogaku Kyouiku Gakkai), invites empirical and theoretical research articles and research reports on second and foreign language teaching and learning in Japanese and Asian contexts. Submissions from Asian and other international contexts are accepted if applicable to language teaching in Japan. Areas of particular interest include but are not limited to the following: 1. Curriculum design and teaching methods 4. Testing and evaluation 2. Classroom-centered research 5. Teacher training 3. Cross-cultural studies 6. Language learning and acquisition 7. Overviews of research and practice in related fields

The editors encourage submissions in five categories: (a) full-length articles, (b) short research reports (Research Forum), (c) essays on language education framed in theory and supported by argumentation that may include either primary or secondary data (Perspectives), (d) comments on previously published JALT Journal articles (Point to Point), and (e) book and media reviews (Reviews). Articles should be written for a general audience of language educators; therefore, statistical techniques and specialized terms must be clearly explained.

Guidelines

Style

JALT Journal follows the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition (available from APA Order Department, P.O. Box 2710, Hyattsville, MD 20784, USA; by email: <order@apa.org>; from the website: <www.apa.org/books.ordering.html>). Consult recent copies of JALT Journal or TESOL Quarterly for examples of documentation and references. A downloadable copy of the JALT Journal style sheet is also available on our website at <http:// jalt-publications.org/jj/>.

Format

Full-length articles must not be more than 20 pages in length (6,000 words), including references, notes, tables, and figures. Research Forum submissions should not be more than 10 pages in length. Perspectives submissions should be not more than 15 pages in length. Point to Point comments on previously published articles should not be more than 675 words in length, and Reviews should generally range from 500 to 1000 words. All submissions must be word processed in A4 or 8.5 x 11â&#x20AC;? format with line spacing set at 1.5 lines. For refereed submissions, names and identifying references should appear only on the cover sheet. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references and reference citations.

Submission Procedure

Please submit the following materials, except for reviews, as an email attachment in MS Word format to the appropriate editor indicated below: 1. Cover sheet with the title and author name(s). 2. One (1) copy of the manuscript, with no reference to the author. Do not use running heads. 3. Contact information sheet, including one authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s full address and, where available, a fax number. 4. Abstract (no more than 150 words). 5. Japanese translation of the title and abstract, if possible (no more than 400ji). 6. Biographical sketch(es) (no more than 50 words each). Submissions will be acknowledged within 1 month of their receipt. All manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editor to ensure they comply with JALT Journal Guidelines. Those considered for publication are subject to blind review by at least two readers, with special attention given to (1) compliance with JALT Journal Editorial Policy, (2) the significance and originality of the submission, and (3) the use of appropriate research design and methodology. Evaluation is usually completed

190

Information for Contributors

191

within 3 months. Each contributing author of published articles and Book Reviews will receive one complimentary copy of the Journal and a PDF of the article (Book Reviews are compiled together as one PDF). JALT Journal does not provide off-prints. Contributing authors have the option of ordering further copies of JALT Journal (contact JALT Central Office for price details).

Restrictions

Papers submitted to JALT Journal must not have been previously published, nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. JALT Journal has First World Publication Rights, as defined by International Copyright Conventions, for all manuscripts published. If accepted, the editors reserve the right to edit all copy for length, style, and clarity without prior notification to authors.

Full-Length Articles, Research Forum, Perspectives, and Point to Point Submissions Please send submissions in these categories or general inquiries to: jj-editor@jalt-publications.org

Anne Howard, JALT Journal Editor

Japanese-Language Manuscripts JALT Journal welcomes Japanese-language manuscripts on second/foreign language teaching and learning as well as Japanese-language reviews of publications. Submissions must conform to the Editorial Policy and Guidelines given above. Authors must provide a detailed abstract in English, 500 to 750 words in length, for full-length manuscripts and a 100-word abstract for reviews. Refer to the Japanese-Language Guidelines for details. Please send Japanese-language manuscripts to: jj-editorj@jalt-publications.org Ken Urano, JALT Journal Japanese-Language Editor

Reviews The editors invite reviews of books and other relevant publications in the field of language education. A list of publications that have been sent to JALT for review is published bimonthly in The Language Teacher. Review authors receive one copy of the Journal. Please send submissions, queries, or requests for books, materials, and review guidelines to: jj-reviews@jalt-publications.org

Greg Rouault, JALT Journal Reviews Editor

Address for Inquiries about Subscriptions, Ordering JALT Journal, or Advertising JALT Central Office Urban Edge Building 5F 1-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan Tel.: 03-3837-1630; Fax: 03-3837-1631 (From overseas: Tel.: 81-3-3837-1630; Fax: 81-3-3837-1631) Email: jco@jalt.org URL: www.jalt.org

JALT Journal

192

日本語論文投稿要領

JALT Journalでは日本語で執筆された論文、研究報告、実践報告、書評等を募集しています。文体:一般的な学術論文のスタイルを用い、章立ての仕方や参考文献のデータの書き方などは、Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.)の定める方式に合わせて下さい。不明の場合は、JALT Journal の英語論文を参考にするか、日本語編集者までお問い合わせ下さい。なお、JALT Journalの読者は現場の教師が主なので、特殊な専門用語や統計的手法は、わかりやすく定義するか説明を加えるなどして下さい。原稿: 長さは、参考文献リストも含め18,000字（書評の場合は1,500字）以内です。A4の用紙に横書きで、１行40字、１ページ 30行で印刷して下さい。手書きの原稿は受け付けません。提出するもの：以下の原稿を電子メールの添付書類、あるいは郵送でお送りください。 •

執筆者の名前と所属機関名を書いた表紙

•

MS-Word で保存した本文（執筆者は無記名のこと）

• 執筆者連絡先（住所、電話番号、ファックス、e-mail アドレス） •

400字以内の和文要旨

•

英文のタイトルと、500〜750語の英文要旨（書評の場合は100語程度の英文要旨）

• 100字以内の執筆者略歴 • 審査を経て掲載の認められた草稿は、図表などを全て写植版にしたものにして提出すること査読：編集委員会で投稿要領に合っているかどうかを確認したあと、少なくとも二人の査読者が査読を行います。査読者には執筆者の名前は知らされません。査読の過程では特に、原稿が JALT Journalの目的に合っているか、言語教育にとって意味があるか、独創性はあるか、研究計画や方法論は適切か等が判定されます。査読は通常二か月以内に終了しますが、特に投稿の多い場合などは審査にそれ以上の時間がかかることがあります。注意：JALT Journalに投稿する原稿は、すでに出版されているものや他の学術雑誌に投稿中のものは避けて下さい。JALT Journalは、そこに掲載されるすべての論文に関して国際著作権協定による世界初出版権を持ちます。なお、お送りいただいた原稿は返却しませんので、控を保存して下さい。投稿原稿送り先またはお問い合わせ：〒062-8605 北海学園大学経営学部 JALT Journal 日本語編集者浦野研電話:(011)841-1161(代) Fax:(011)824-7729 jj-editorj@jalt-publications.org

JALT Journal

第 38 巻第 2 号

2016年 10月20日印刷 2016年 11月 1日発行編集人アン・マクレラン・ハワード発行人ロイド・キャロライン発行所全国語学教育学会事務局〒110-0016 東京都台東区台東1-37-9 アーバンエッジビル5Ｆ TEL（03) 3837-1630; FAX （03) 3837-1631 印刷所コーシンシャ株式会社〒530-0043 大阪市北区天満1-18-4天満ファーストビル301 TEL （06） 6351-8795